Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BLACKFRIARS BRIDGEHEAD IMPROVEMENTS BILL

BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to Order [25th July], and agreed to.

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether I could raise the fact that the Amendments to these Bills are not available to hon. Members who wish to see them. I wonder what procedure we could adopt to ensure that in future Amendments are put on the Order Paper so that Members of Parliament can easily see what they are before making up their minds whether to discuss them, to support them or to refuse to pass them?

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member finds himself in difficulties under the present rule, he should object to the Bill. I appreciate the point that he is making, but it is not really a matter for me. It would, I think, be an alteration of the practice of the House.

OLDHAM CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered.

Standing Order 204 (Notice of amendments on consideration of bill, or on third reading) suspended; Amendments proposed by the Promoters to be taken into consideration forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Amendments made to the Bill.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) suspended; Bill to be read the

Third time forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Ordered, That the Promoters of the Cardiff Corporation Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further Proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceeding not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered, That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered, That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the First time and shall be ordered to be read a Second time;

Ordered, That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand or shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session; and all notices of objection to the right of Petitioners to be heard given in the present Session, within the time prescribed by the Rules of the Court of Referees relating to such notices, shall be held applicable in the next Session;

Ordered, That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill unless their Petition shall have been presented within the time limited within the present Session;

Ordered, That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceeding on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered, That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

ESSO PETROLEUM COMPANY BILL

Ordered, That the Promoters of the Esso Petroleum Company Bill shall have leave to suspend any further Proceeding thereon in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further Proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered, That not later than Five o'clock on the third day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shill be presented to the House;

Ordered, That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its Proceeding in this House in the present Session;

Ordered, That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the First and Second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make only such Amendments thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report the Bill to the House

forthwith, and the Bill, as amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered, That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any Proceeding on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered, That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords.

PETITION

Road, Harthill

Miss Herbison: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I beg to ask leave to present a Petition asking that the trunk road A.8 be diverted to by-pass the village of Harthill. This Petition has been organised by the road safety committee of that village and is supported by the signatures of 1,999 citizens all resident in the village.
The Petition draws attention to the constant and increasingly serious danger to the citizens. More pedestrians, children and old people particularly, have lost their lives on the road in Harthill than on any other stretch of this trunk road. The danger will be greatly increased with the industrial development on this road and, because of this, my constituents fear greatly for the safety of their children and their old people.
The Petition concludes with these words:
Wherefore, your petitioners pray that you immediately take steps to divert this road to by-pass the village.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Cotton Industry (Reorganisation)

Mr. C. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of the high profits now being made in the Lancashire cotton trade, he will review the necessity for continuing the policy of giving grants of public money for scrapping and modernisation; how much has been paid out already; how much has been claimed; what the total cost is expected to be; and if he will make a statement.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The estimated costs to the Exchequer of payments for eliminating excess capacity under the reorganisation schemes is about £13 million of which nearly £5 million has been paid. Applications so far received for re-equipment grants would, if fully accepted, cost some £2½ million. The best provisional estimate I can give of the total cost of the arrangements under the Cotton Industry Act remains about £30 million. The fact that the textile trade is now prospering does not seem to me to justify interfering with a scheme that is working well.

Mr. Osborne: Could my right hon. Friend tell me what earthly justification there can be for pumping public money into an industry which is already over-prosperous? How can it be justified? Since the industry is now undoubtedly acknowledged to be prosperous, why is not the scheme ended so that the public purse can be saved this money?

Mr. Maudling: The reasons for doing this were very fully argued when Parliament passed the Cotton Industry Act. The fact that the industry is now prospering seems not to militate against the scheme but rather to encourage one to think that it is right.

Mr. John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since the scheme was brought into operation, the price of cotton goods has increased and delivery for many piece goods has gone up to twelve months?

Mr. Maudling: Of course, the introduction of the scheme has coincided with a considerable boom in the demand for textile goods throughout the world.

Mr. Jay: Did not the present Minister of Education when President of the Board of Trade promise Lancashire, in the course of the election campaign, that £50 million of public money would be spent? Can the present President of the Board of Trade endorse that estimate?

Mr. Maudling: I think that the estimate already given was £30 million, to which we stick. We have no desire to spend more than that.

Exports

Mr. Boyden: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to encourage British manufacturers to make more effective use of his Department's export services and the Exports Credits Guarantee Department and to sell sufficient goods abroad.

Mr. Stratton Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for stimulating British exports, in view of the recently published trade returns.

Mr. Cronin: asked the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the great increase in world export trade and the steadily decreasing share which Great Britain has had in it in recent years, he will indicate Her Majesty's Government's policy with regard to increasing the United Kingdom's exports.

Mr. Maudling: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 19th July.

Mr. Boyden: Is the right hon. Gentleman relying purely on words? Is he satisfied that his commercial staff overseas is adequate to provide proper advice to our exporters, and does he intend to do anything material in the way of financial inducements for certain kinds of exports so that we have the best sort of exports with the best sort of effect on the economy?

Mr. Maudling: The commercial officers of the Government overseas are extremely good in general, and I should


be very happy to receive advice or suggestions. As regards financial inducements, we have always taken the line that export subsidies in any form are bad because, if we enter into competition with other countries in export subsidies, we are almost certain to lose.

Mr. Mills: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the disappointing performance of British exports in the first six months of the year demonstrates clearly that this is the major economic danger spot for a forthcoming economic crisis? Has my right hon. Friend perused the correspondence columns of the Financial Times and The Times, and has he noted the feeling expressed in many quarters that the official facilities provided by the Department are not entirely satisfactory? Will he consider again whether the official facilities utilised by the Dollar Exports Council in the official sphere could be put on a wider basis to spread the advantage of its benefits?

Mr. Maudling: I would not talk about an economic crisis—I think that that would be wrong—but I agree that the expansion of our exports is necessary if we are to do all the things we wait to do in the world. The correspondence in the newspapers is being followed very closely by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and we are taking careful note of every point made in the columns of the newspapers. I think that the facilities available at the Board of Trade are as good as they are in any other country, although, obviously, they can always be improved. I am considering whether there could be advantage in extending the Dollar Exports Council system to other areas.

Mr. Cronin: Is not the real truth of the matter that, apart from the measures to which reference has been made, which have only a minor or marginal effect, the Government have no policy at all for increasing exports and, like Mr. Micawber, they are just waiting for something to turn up?

Mr. Maudling: I have not noticed that the Opposition have much to offer.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of our export trade is accounted for by the large firms, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Twickenham; and whether

he will suggest further measures for spreading the burden of exports more widely among smaller firms.

Mr. Maudling: No official statistics are available about the proportion of export trade done by large companies. An unofficial study suggests that it is high. Many small firms conduct a thriving direct export trade, and many more contribute essential components to the exports of large concerns. The Government's aim is to bring the attention of all businessmen, large and small, to the need for exports, the range of opportunities open in overseas markets, and the Government services available to help them.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Has my right hon. Friend seen the statement that 30 per cent. of our exports are made by only forty firms—the large ones—and that there are hundreds of small firms making finished products which are not making any exports at all? Has not the time arrived when there ought to be some system of guarantees or incentives to encourage smaller firms to go out into the world and export?

Mr. Maudling: I am not sure about a special scheme of guarantees and incentives, but, as my hon. Friend says, there is no doubt that there is scope for a much greater export effort by many of our smaller and medium-sized firms.

Mr. Snow: While paying a tribute to the most excellent services provided by the Export Services Branch of the Board of Trade, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the time has not come when there should be a large reinforcement of the commercial element in our missions abroad so as to deal not merely with commercial inquiries but with specific commercial problems which arise for small firms which possibly do not understand local business psychology?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about the services provided by the Board of Trade because, whatever political view we take about Government Ministers, I am sure that we all agree that the officials do an extremely good job. I should like to consider his suggestion. I am grateful for his suggestion and any other suggestions about ways in which our services can be improved for the benefit of exporters.

Mr. Jay: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the remarkable estimate that 30 per cent. of our exports are done by forty firms?

Mr. Maudling: I have already said in reply that there was an unofficial study. I think that that neither confirms nor denies.

New Factory Space

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of the total new factory space in square feet for which industrial development certificates were granted in Great Britain was accounted for by the London and South-Eastern Region in the first half of 1958, 1959, and 1960, respectively, and what were the corresponding percentages for the Scottish, Northern and Welsh Regions, taken together.

Mr. Maudling: For schemes of over 5,000 square feet in manufacturing industry, the London and South Eastern Region's share was 20·2 per cent. in the first six months of 1958, 17·4 per cent, in 1959 and 9·7 per cent. in the first three months of 1960. Corresponding figures for Scotland, Wales and the Northern Region combined were 20·1 per cent., 29·2 per cent. and 16·2 per cent.
The extent of the industrial location control was changed by the Local Employment Act; from 1st April, 1960, the industrial building figures relate to a wider and non-manufacturing field of development. Under the new series, the proportions for the two areas for April to June, 1960, were 13·9 per cent., and 12·7 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Jay: If I understand those figures aright, there seems to be an encouraging reduction in the share going to London and the South-East, which I hope will be continued; but will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, apparently, the figures for, roughly speaking, the development district regions have declined in the early months of 1960, as compared with 1959?

Mr. Maudling: It is wrong to proceed on the basis of two or three months' figures because one might have one big project which would distort the figures. Also, I think that it would be wiser to take the figures on the basis of employment rather than factory space. Broadly

speaking, no new manufacturing industry has come to the London area, and the schemes in terms of square footage which have been approved have, by and large, been extensions which could not take place elsewhere.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the first three months of 1960, according to his figures, there was apparently a reduction in the proportion going to the development district regions? Was that accidental or deliberate?

Mr. Maudling: I have said that one ought not to take it on a short-term basis. If one takes it in terms of employment, which seems to be what matters, in the first three months of 1960 the figure for London and the South-East was 4·5 per cent. and for the other area mentioned it was 22·6 per cent.

New Industries, Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the progress of his plans to date for attracting new industries to Aberdeen.

Mr. Maudling: At the Board of Trade we are continuing our efforts to attract new industry to Aberdeen, and we have intimated our willingness to give what help and advice we can to the North-East Development Committee in Scotland.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he and his predecessors have been giving that sort of answer, expressing willingness, for eight years? Promises of that kind have been made, and Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland is littered with broken promises. Will the President of the Board of Trade do something constructive to bring new industry to Aberdeen?

Mr. Maudling: I always express, and will express, willingness to help. What I cannot do is express willingness to direct, and, indeed, I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has ever asked us to do so. All we can do is to help people who want to go to Aberdeen. In the first place, there must be people who want to do so.

Factory Sites, Scotland (United States Firms)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that several United States firms have visited Scotland looking for factory sites and that over a score of United States firms are investigating possibilities of extending United States trade in Scotia id; and if he will now make a detailed statement on the Scottish locations considered and the nature of the industries proposed.

Mr. Maudling: Yes, Sir. I am happy to say that a number of United States firms are interested in the possibilities which Scotland affords, and my officials are at present dealing with active inquiries which, if they are successful, child produce a substantial number of new jobs. We know also of many United States firms which are interested in making licensing arrangements with Scottish firms. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that I cannot reveal the details of confidential discussions with individual firms.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his Answers to this Question and to Question No. 5 are abject confessions of failure? If he cannot show any initiative in this matter, will he take a line from Lord Polwarth and the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) who are doing very good work in this respect, and will he try to do something constructive?

Mr. Maudling: The Scottish Council is certainly doing extremely good work. I can only suggest that the hon. and leaned Gentleman should read my Answer to the last Question.

Employment, Thorne

Mr. Jeger: asked the President of the Board of Trade what action he is taking to guide industrial enterprises to Thorne, in view of the unemployment rate of 4·4 per cent. in that area of Yorkshire.

Mr. Maudling: Thorne is not, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a locality in which a persistently high rate of unemployment exists or is expected; it is therefore not eligible for the special incentives to industry provided by the Local Employment Act. My Depart-

ment will, however, continue to bring the facilities offered by the area to the attention of suitable firms, subject to the overriding needs of the development districts.

Mr. Jeger: If the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that 4·4 per cent. does not render Thorne qualified for special treatment, will he tell the House what figure of unemployment does qualify for special attention? Will he give up making ineffectual noises at the Box about being anxious to help when there is such a scandalously high level of unemployment in this area and he does nothing?

Mr. Maudling: We must preserve a sense of proportion in this. Thorne is within eight miles of Doncaster, where the unemployment rate was 1·1 per cent. and there are several hundred new jobs in prospect.

Trade with Japan

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a full statement on the import effects of the new Anglo-Japanese trade agreement; what is the increase allowed in the yearly quota of pottery imports; and whether the appropriate trade organisations were consulted.

Mr. Maudling: The new trade arrangements with Japan for the period up to 31st March, 1961, provide additional opportunities for trade in both directions. To allow for increased imports from Japan quotas on a range of goods have been increased in total by £2·5 million and a number of goods have been placed on open licence. A full list of the goods affected and of the new quotas has been published in the Board of Trade Journal.
The quota for imports of pottery from Japan has been increased from £50,000 to £100,000.
The Board of Trade and other Departments concerned are constantly in touch with industry on these matters, but they cannot consult industry about the detailed conduct of particular negotiations.

Mr. Nabarro: Is there any increase, in quota or otherwise, for carpets coming from Japan?

Mr. Maudling: The Question referred to pottery. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the new quotas have been published in the Board of Trade Journal. In view of the assiduity of his reading, I am surprised that he does not know the answer already.

Mr. Chetwynd: What goods do we expect to get into Japan in increased quantities in return for this?

Mr. Maudling: A wide range of goods—machine tools, woollen textiles, razor blades, whisky, and many other things.

Mr. Nabarro: Why not answer about carpets? I do not think that my right hon. Friend knows the answer.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what undertakings were requested and given, respectively, by either party during the negotiations on the Anglo-Japanese trade agreement.

Mr. Maudling: I cannot disclose details of what passed during the negotiations. The arrangements concluded have been announced in the Board of Trade Journal.

Mr. Ellis Smith: The issues involved in this Question are too serious to treat like this. While not attributing any responsibility to the present President of the Board of Trade, may I ask whether he would agree that it is a fact that our trade needs have been subordinated to the foreign policy of another country? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in future we shall make it quite clear to the world that our economic needs are such that our trade must come before everything else?

Mr. Maudling: I am grateful for the opportunity of making it absolutely clear that in working out these new trade arrangements the sole concern of the Board of Trade was the interest of British trade as a whole. We are quite satisfied that the arrangements will lead to an expansion of trade on both sides, and my belief is that if British exporters take all the opportunities open to them we shall gain on balance.

Industrial Development, Crook

Mr. Ainsley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what plan he has for the three district authorities within the

Crook employment exchange area, scheduled under the Employment Act, to receive industrial aid, as basic industries decline and unemployment increases.

Mr. Maudling: Industrial projects to be located in the Bishop Auckland development district, which includes Crook, are eligible for the assistance available under the Local Employment Act, and my Department will continue to do all it can to encourage new industry to go there.

Mr. Ainsley: I want to thank the Minister for his sympathetic approach to this problem in previous correspondence I have had with him, but sympathy is not enough. This area is declining in its basic industries and migration is speeding up. It was stated on the tape only yesterday that 10,000 to 15,000 extra jobs are being created in the London area, which will cause further social problems. Will the Minister do some planning and get industry into these areas?

Mr. Maudling: I am aware of the difficulties in this area, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing all we can to help.

Waste Paper (Salvage)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is satisfied with the amount of waste paper being collected by local authorities for salvage; what is the total amount for the last twelve months; and how many local authorities are still outside the scheme.

Mr. Maudling: I have not heard of any dissatisfaction with the amount collected. I understand that 1,223,000 tons were received by the paper mills in 1959. Local authorities are not obliged to report on their collection of waste paper, but I am aware that at least 750 authorities collect regularly.

Wing Commander Bullus: If the scheme for the salvage of waste paper is to be of any value, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage local authorities and any other agencies outside the scheme to come into the scheme? In view of the large amount of waste paper received by hon. Members, is the Palace of Westminster within the scheme for reclamation and salvage?

Mr. Maudling: I suspect that that is a question for one or other of my right hon. Friends.

New Potatoes (Imports from Belgium)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Pre-sident of the Board of Trade what was the quantity of new potatoes imported from Belgium in the month of June, and the first two weeks in July; and how this compares with the quantity imported in the same period in 1959.

Mr. Maudling: I regret that details of Belgian imports for the month of June are not yet available and that weekly figures are not collected.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise what damage he is doing to the new potato trade in the west of Scotland where the farmers say that they have never had it so bad? Is he aware that I would invite him to see for himself if I could guarantee his personal safety? The Secretary of State for Scotland is going there next week, and will the right hon. Gentleman consult him before the same thing happens next year?

Mr. Maudling: The invitation is tempting, but I hope that the qualification is unnecessary.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, though he may not have the figures, growers of early potatoes are very conscious of the presence of Belgian imports? Will he bear in mind also that the consumer really does not get any improved conditions as a result of these imports? They dislocate the trade. They hang over and complicate the market of main crop potatoes, for which, in the end, the Government have to provide a guarantee. Is he satisfied that the anti-dumping provisions are quick enough in operation to cover all cases of this kind?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look into the question of the anti-dumping provisions if I am given any evidence on that point. The imports from Belgium up to the end of May were not on a significant scale, and there is a protective seasonal tariff which rises to £9 6s. 8d. between 16th May and 30th June.

Mr. Manuel: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has allowed a 12 per cent. increase in potato imports

recently, and that, in fact, there has been rather a storm of indignation about it in Scotland, especially in the west of Scotland? The Tory chairman of the Ayr County Council, himself a farmer, writing in the Scottish Farmer, says that the industry is sick of being overloaded with home supplies. If that is so, ought not the right hon. Gentleman to tell those concerned in sufficient time for them to reduce their potato acreage and to get on with growing something else that will sell?

Mr. Maudling: I will certainly look into the question of dumping. There is a substantial seasonal protective tariff, and I am not prepared to accept that the fact that imports of a commodity have gone up is a bad thing in itself.

New Industries, Peterlee

Mr. Shinwell: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the has any statement to make on the provision of new industries in the new town of Peterlee and adjoining districts.

Mr. Maudling: As I told the right hon. Member on 284th April, the Board of Trade will continue to bring the advantages of Peterlee, including the industrial sites available, to the attention of firms seeking a new location. As Peterlee is in a development district, the inducements provided by the Local Employment Act should be a further encouragement to industry to go to the locality.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that this town has now been in existence for more than ten years, and that the total amount of employed female labour is no more than 600 persons? If he cannot direct industry to come to Peterlee and the adjoining area, where there is great danger of mining redundancy, will he at least provide facilities for the existing firms, which are anxious to expand in order to enter the export trade? Will he make some inquiry into that aspect?

Mr. Maudling: All the facilities under the Local Employment Act are available. On 26th January, my 'hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said that a new factory under construction should provide 140 additional jobs, rising to 350.


Other developments within travel-to-work distance were expected to provide 3,000 more jobs, and that estimate certainly stands.

New Industries, South-West England

Mr. Hayman: asked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has sent to the South-Western Council of the National Chamber of Trade in reply to its representations about inducements to attract new industries to the south-west of England.

Mr. Maudling: I presume that the hon. Member is referring to a letter dated 19th July sent by the Council to my Department and largely concerned with pressing south-west England's needs for improved communications. A reply has been sent, and the Council will no doubt be informing the hon. Member of its contents.

Mr. Hayman: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to see that these improved communications extend to Cornwall, and particularly to my constituency and to the town of Camborne-Redruth, whose exports of engineering and other products exceed, for a town of its size, those of almost any other town in the country?

Mr. Maudling: I am well aware of the importance of good communications with London and the Midlands for towns in this area.

B.O.T.A.C. (Assistance)

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the dominant factors which are taken into account in considering applications for assistance under the Board of Trade Advisory Committee scheme.

Mr. Maudling: The factors which are taken into account are the requirements laid down in the Local Employment Act. Dominant amongst these are the location of the project, the employment it is likely to provide, the expenditure involved and the applicant's prospects of success.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been fourteen applications for aid under the scheme since it was introduced, but that, to the best of my knowledge, no application has yet been granted? Will he

please again look very closely into this, because there is a most pressing need in the South-West, and particularly in Cornwall, for some kind of additional industry? We have not had any additional industries as yet.

Mr. Maudling: I gather that there have been fourteen applications from Cornwall, of which eleven are under consideration. I must say that I follow this as closely as I can, and I have satisfied myself that the considerations laid down by Parliament when passing the Local Employment Act are being closely followed.

Telecommunications Equipment (Bulk Supplies Agreements)

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will use his powers under Section 1 (2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, to secure early consideration by the Restrictive Practices Court of the agreement between manufacturers of telephone equipment.

Mr. Darling: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will direct the Registrar of Restrictive Trade Practices, under Section 1 (2) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, to give priority to the bringing of the agreement on the supply of telephone equipment before the Restrictive Practices Court.

Mr. Maudling: I assume that the hon. Members are referring to the bulk supplies agreements between the Postmaster-General and certain manufacturers of telecommunications equipment. I am advised by the Registrar of Restrictive Trading Agreements that these agreements are not registrable. There is, therefore, no action for me to take.

Mr. Jay: Is not this really rather unsatisfactory? First, we are told that the Monopolies Act does not apply, and now we are told that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act does not work. Is it really in accordance with Government policy that the breaking of this monopoly should be left to a take-over bid by a private firm?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that that is the situation at all. The monopolies legislation will apply if there is a firm holding more than a certain percentage of the market. I do not think that


there is in this case. The question of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act then arises, but there are, of course, clear provisions in that Act that agreements are not registrable where Crown privilege is involved, which is what occurs in this case.

Mr. Darling: Are there not two lots of agreement here; one agreement between the manufacturers themselves, and the manufacturers' agreements to supply things to the Post Office? There surely ca snot be an agreement between the Post Office and the seven or eight firms concerned without those seven or eight firms having an agreement among themselves to give effect to it.

Mr. Maudling: I quite agree that there an: agreements to which the Crown is party and which, therefore, are not registrable. There are also agreements to which the Crown is not a party, which are on the register and may be brought before the court by the Registrar, but Parliament has given to the Registrar. and not to the Government, the power to determine the timing.

Mr. Darling: I think that the latter part of that reply is not quite correct. Under the Act, does not the President of the Board of Trade have power to suggest or give some indication to the Registrar as to the priorities of the agreements to be brought before the court?

Mr. Maudling: We have, if necessary, I agree, power to issue directions, but I think that we would be wise to leave it to the Registrar—who, after all, is the man who runs the thing—as we have in this case, to determine the order in which this should be handled.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is it not really a matter for investigation by the Select Committee of Public Accounts Committee?

Mr. Jay: If Parliament has specifically given the President of the Board of Trade the power to give instructions to the Registrar in these cases, why does he not do so in this case, in view of its of obvious importance?

Mr. Maudling: As I have said, I do not think that, on the whole, we would be wise to issue a direction to the Registrar, who performs his duties ex-

tremely well. The real question is whether an agreement to which the Post Office is a party is a good agreement. I think that that is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) had in mind, and questions on that are, I think, better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General.

Development Districts (Employment)

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the progress made in providing employment in the development districts specified under the Local Employment Act; and if any changes are contemplated in the list of these areas.

Mr. Tilney: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has been made in providing employment in the development districts designated under the Local Employment Act; and whether he proposes to make any changes in the list of these districts.

Mr. Maudling: Considerable progress has been made. If projects go ahead as planned, new jobs in prospect in these districts are about 74,000 against average unemployment over the last twelve months of 133,000. There are three places, Merseyside, Llanelly and Sheerness, which I hope to be able to take off the list in the near future. The de-listing of these places depends on the outcome of applications for assistance at present under consideration, but to avoid the frustration of further applications and to concentrate our efforts on the remaining development districts and Northern Ireland, I have decided not to accept any more applications for these three places.
I am not at the moment proposing to add any places to the list.

Mr. Pannell: When considering the removal of Merseyside from the list, will my right hon. Friend take into account the present difficulties confronting the motor industry, which might frustrate or delay the plans it has in Merseyside at the moment?

Mr. Maudling: Yes, certainly. That is why I have not actually taken Merseyside off the list, but have said that if all goes ahead as we hope, it will come off the list. In the meantime, it would be wrong to take on new applications. The figure


of unemployment on Merseyside, at 3·4 per cent., is 20,000, and jobs in prospect amount to 33,000.

Mr. H. Wilson: Not only as representing a Merseyside constituency but as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor who first scheduled Merseyside as a development area, may I ask him, when considering this matter, to pay very careful attention to the danger of Merseyside becoming over-dependent on one single industry which, as we all know, can be highly vulnerable? While we have expressed our appreciation of the work done to bring motor car firms to Merseyside, may I ask him to be very careful to see that Merseyside does not suffer in the future, as so many other areas, including Merseyside, have suffered in the past, from being over-dependent on a single source of employment?

Mr. Maudling: I certainly take that point—it is important. Of the 33,000 jobs in prospect, the motor industry accounts for 18,000—leaving 15,000 quite apart from the motor industry—against a total unemployment figure of 20,000, so I think that the position is really rather encouraging.

Industry, Falmouth and Camborne

Mr. Hayman: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many applications for help for industries in the Falmouth and Camborne constituency have been received since 29th March, 1960; and how many have been granted.

Mr. Maudling: Five applications for assistance under the Local Employment Act have been received from this area, of which one has been approved in principle and the remaining four are still under consideration.

Mr. Hayman: Will the President of the Board of Trade give special consideration to the needs of my constituency, in view of the Ministry of Labour June count? Is he aware that the unemployment percentage in Falmouth was 10·2, that in Camborne and Redruth an engineering works is now on short time and that redundancies are expected soon; and that, in addition, there will be fifty redundancies at the I.C.I. factory at Tuckingmill, Camborne, next month? Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to persuade to replace the industry which is going to Scotland with

another industry because of the ramifications of its operations?

Mr. Maudling: I cannot agree to give special consideration to the constituency of any hon. Member. We must look at all of them in the light of their particular needs. As out of five applications one has been approved and the other four are still in play, I think the hon. Member is scoring rather well.

Advance Factories

Miss Herbison: asked the President of the Board of Trade when work will commence on the second advance factory in Scotland.

Mr. Maudling: As the Parliamentary Secretary said in answer to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) on 12th July, no decision has yet been reached about building further advance factories. I am keeping the matter under review.

Miss Herbison: How soon does the Minister expect to be able to give a decision on that matter? Does he not realise that if what the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) believes and what he himself said in answer to the Question put by my hon. Friend is true, that there will be firms looking for factory space, the Government should be getting on with the building of those factories and employing some of the unemployed building trade workers?

Mr. Maudling: I agree that I think the case is a strong one, and I hope to be able to do something fairly soon.

Industrial Buildings, Carfin

Mr. Lawson: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for the Industrial Estates Management Corporation for Scotland to take over from the Admiralty the group of industrial buildings at Carfin, Lanarkshire, with a view to the letting of these buildings in whole or in part for manufacturing purposes.

Mr. Maudling: No, Sir. The storage depot was inspected by Scottish Industrial Estates Limited and it was not considered suitable for industrial purposes without substantial modification.

Mr. Lawson: Will the President of the Board of Trade correct this use of


the term "storage depôt"? Is he aware that he has already been wrongly informed about the occupancy of this depot? Will he take it from me that he has been wrongly informed about the industrial potential of these excellent industrial buildings? In view of the fact that he has been wrongly informed about this place, will he undertake to see that there is a proper inspection of the industrial potential to see what can be done about this area?

Mr. Maudling: I must admit that I was wrong in telling the hon. Member that this building was being used for whisky storage. It is being used for storage, but not for the storage of whisky. The fact is that the building was erected for use as a store and has been used as a store ewer since. That is a different thing from an industrial building.

Employment, The Hartlepools

Commander Kerans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the prospects for increased employment in The Hartlepools between now and 1962.

Mr. Maudling: In the area covered 133 the West Hartlepool-Hartlepool development district, there are ten al proved new buildings and extensions under construction or to be started. The firms concerned estimate that a total of 2,500 additional jobs will result from these schemes, of which approximately 2,000 should accrue by the end of 1962.

Commander Kerans: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that we still have 42 per cent. unemployed in that area and that we have a considerable acreage available for industrial development? Will he bear those facts in mind?

Mr. Maudling: The latest number of unemployed in the district was 1,340, so that 2,000 additional jobs by the end of 1962 should be a considerable help.

Exports (Publicity)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, with a view to encouraging exports, he will consider producing a Board of Trade overseas export journal, containing information and advertisements

relating to current British products, for distribution by consular offices overseas.

Mr. Maudling: The requirements of export publicity vary too greatly from country to country, not least as regards language, and from product to product, and the range of products exported by British industry is too wide, for a Government publication of this kind to be practicable, but I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion. [Laughter.]

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, and while acknowledging that there are some highly specialised and very excellent export journals, may I ask whether it might not be helpful to some of the smaller firms which cannot afford a large advertising campaign in foreign countries to have a medium in the form of a Government magazine which they could use for advertising purposes?

Mr. Maudling: I think the difficulties that I have referred to are really insuperable. One is surprised that when one thanks hon. Members for making suggestions it is greeted by levity from the other side. I should have thought that in the matter of promoting exports there would have been a general desire to have put forward and received useful suggestions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Government Transport Service (Equal Pay)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now extend the principle of equal pay for comparable work at present enjoyed by women in the public transport services to all women employed in transport in the Government service.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): No, Sir. The Government have accepted the principle of equal pay for the non-industrial Civil Service, but in the case of industrial workers they follow the practice in outside industry. Most of the women to whom the hon. Member refers are in the second category.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the National Joint


Council for Passenger Transport lays down one rate of pay for men and women? Is he not also aware that in the ambulance services all over the country women drivers and attendants get full pay and that therefore throughout the whole range of transport, private and public, outside Government service there is an overwhelming measure of equal pay? Is it not time, therefore, that the Government gave the girls in green and the women drivers of the Atomic Energy Authority the same rights as those which women enjoy outside Government service?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that the bon. Lady is correct when she says that that is overwhelmingly the case in outside industry. I am advised that in outside industry it is generally not the practice for the rates to be the same. Where they are the same, of course, that would be a factor in the comparison to which I have referred. The rates in force have been agreed with the trade unions concerned.

Co-operative Societies (Savings)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many co-operative societies and other co-operative organisations were contacted by his Department during the course of the inquiry into the effect on co-operative savings of the concession made to the Post Office Savings Bank and the Trustee Savings Banks in 1956.

Mr. Amory: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave him on 19th July, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reply says that no inquiries were made at all? May I ask the Chancellor why, in turning down the Amendment on the Finance Bill on 22nd June, relating to co-operative small savings being exempted from Income Tax, it was said that it would not affect co-operative finances at all? Will the Minister explain why he repeatedly pays tribute at the Dispatch Box to the Cooperative movement and yet the present Government seem to take every opportunity to hamper the movement which belongs to 13 million people in this country, and not international financiers? Why are the Government so unhelpful to the

Co-operative movement and so friendly to the speculators, profiteers and racketeers?

Mr. Amory: My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary, in the debate to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, stated that no evidence was to hand that there had been any major switches in co-operative savings to National Savings. He did not say that any inquiry had been made. He said there was no evidence to hand; that is, so far as we are concerned.
As to the second part of the supplementary question, the Government have taken scrupulous care to do everything they can to ensure that the Co-operative movement is placed in a perfectly fair position in relation to private enterprise with which it competes.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jeger, Question No. 31.

Mr. Dodds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the words which I used were not spoken in the debate. I should like to refer the Chancellor to column 447 of the Report of the debate, when the Economic Secretary was challenged with these words:
 Since the hon. Gentleman has made inquiries, will he give us the source of his information, so that we may assess it?
Mr. BARBER: I have not the details with me, but that was the conclusion drawn by those who advised me quite fairly from the facts."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1960; Vol. 625, c. 447.]

Mr. Amory: Nothing that the hon. Gentleman has said cannot be reconciled with what I have said. The Economic Secretary said that there was no evidence to hand that there had been switches. He expressed the opinion, therefore, that he did not think it was an important factor. He did not say that he had made inquiries.

Mr. Dodds: Owing to the unsatisfactory answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

National Theatre

Mr. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now concluded his discussions with the Arts Council on the proposal to build a National Theatre; and whether he is in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Amory: I have exchanged views with the Arts Council on this matter but am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Jeger: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I put down this Question precisely in order to give him the opportunity to make his last appearance here a great occasion? Would not he reconsider this matter between now and tomorrow morning and, if possible, mike a special announcement that he has agreed that a National Theatre shall at last he built on the South Bank? Is he aware that the London County Council is holding on to a very suitable site for this theatre, but will not hold or to it for ever? Will the Government mike up their mind very quickly?

Mr. Amory: I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as long as I am in my present position, this will not be out of my thoughts day or night. I should like to say that there are a great many competing projects for the resources available and that this is not an easy decision to reach.

Civil Service Pensions (Temporary Service)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of making all previous service by temporary civil servants count in full in the computation of their pensions.

Mr. Amory: Capitalised, the cost is estimated at £175 million.

Mr. Freeth: Would my right hon. Friend tell the House how much it would cost per annum if from this moment such previous service were counted in full for payment for all pensions now being paid, and would he state the maximum annual increase in cost to the Exchequer?

Mr. Amory: The annual cost would be about £6½ million to £7½ million, but in the first year it would cost about £20 million because it would, in the view of the Government, be necessary to revise the lump sum payments and pensions already made in the past at a cost of about £14 million.

Foreign Exchange Reserves (Financing of Imports)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what

extent drawings on the foreign exchange reserves to meet obligations incurred in the financing of imports by acceptance credit are outweighed by the invisible earnings derived therefrom.

Mr. Amory: I regret that the available statistics do not provide the necessary information. The total of acceptances of all kinds outstanding at 31st March last—£145 million—was, however, only £5 million higher than the total at 31st March, 1958. These figures cover not only United Kingdom trade but also trade between countries overseas.

Bank of England Act, 1946

Mr. Cronin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to amend the 1946 Bank of England Act with a view to enabling Her Majesty's Government to give general directions to the banks on the extent of advances.

Mr. Amory: I see no present need for such legislation.

Mr. Cronin: Would not a more forthcoming Answer be more appropriate at the end of the right hon. Gentleman's personally popular and not undistinguished term of office? Would not it be simpler than the boomerang weapon of the Bank Rate and the various esoteric measures of Government financial policy?

Mr. Amory: I am very grateful for the kind remarks which the hon. Gentleman made in the first part of his supplementary question. I see no present need for such legislation. Arrangements between the Treasury and the Bank of England and between the Bank of England and the banks respectively seem to me to work satisfactorily.

Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Ltd.

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what negotiations have taken place or are contemplated between the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency and Mr. Charles Clore in connection with the sale of any part of the equity of Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Limited.

Mr. Amory: I cannot comment on rumours about bids for prospective sales of particular steel companies in public ownership.

Mr. Ginsburg: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask whether he does not feel that a more categorical assurance is required? Is he not aware that, after the last debate on Richard Thomas and Baldwins, Mr. Clore's spokesman announced that he would be interested in acquiring a substantial share of the equity if he were approached? Does not the Chancellor feel that a statement on this matter is therefore merited?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that I could regard it as right to make a statement on hearsay evidence of that nature.

Mr. H. Wilson: Was it not categorically denied just before we adjourned for the Easter Recess that there were any dealings going on at all with Mr. Clore? Secondly, in the recent debate, was it not stated that the Government would not proceed with this act of vandalism either? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] In present circumstances, that is. In those circumstances does not it mean that the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to be more specific will give rise to a number of rumours that there is something very unsavoury going on?

Mr. Amory: I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's views.

Steel Companies (Equity Shareholdings)

Mr. Ginsburg: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in the interests of furthering a property-owning democracy, he will consider introducing a statutory restriction on the size of equity shareholding that may be sold or acquired in steel companies yet to be denationalised.

Mr. Amory: No, Sir.

Mr. Ginsburg: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are extremely respectable precedents for a policy of that kind? Is he not aware that he himself sets a limit on the holdings of National Savings Certificates and that the German Government, in denationalising Volkswagen, have made a limit on the number of equity shares which can be held so that the company can be owned by the small investor and not by the large financiers?

Mr. Amory: I do not think that the hon. Member's suggestion would

accomplish his objective. There are many corporate bodies, such as insurance companies and pension funds, which invest on behalf of many small investors.

Mr. Lee: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that Government spokesmen have given us the impression that a very large proportion of the steel industry is owned by millions of widows and very small shareholders? Is he now going back on that policy which would in fact produce a property-owning democracy of the type—at least that is the impression we have been under—which the Tories wish to create?

Mr. Amory: In denationalising account is taken of the welfare of the industry and the return to the taxpayers.

Council House Building Loans (Interest Rates)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what effect the raising of the Bank Rate will have on the interest rates on future council house building loans and programmes.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the effect of his new financial policy, in particular the raising of the Bank Rate, on interest rates on loans to local authorities for the house building programmes.

Mr. Amory: It is not possible to estimate the effect of the recent increases in Bank Rate on future council house building loans or programmes since Bank Rate has no direct link with the rate at which local authorities raise capital for housing purposes either in the market or from the Public Works Loan Board.
My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave the House on Friday, 15th July, details of the changes which have been made in the lending rates of the Public Works Loan Board to take account of changes in market rates.

Mr. Allaun: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that this latest increase in housing interest rates, very quietly disclosed in that Written Answer, is bound to reduce still further the council house building programme, which since 1954 has already been cut by half, and therefore condemn to hopelessness the young married couples, the overcrowded and others on the tragic housing list? Can we be assured that, even without a


further Bank Rate increase, there will not be an additional increase in housing interest rates before we resume in October?

Mr. Amory: The hon. Member knows that the rates charged by the Public Works Loan Board are comparable with tie rates charged in the market at the tine that any change is made. The most recent increase on these housing loans, which are generally of fifteen years or more, was ⅛per cent.

Mrs. Butler: Does not the Chancellor appreciate that for local authorities with an appalling housing problem, and already faced with a steeply rising cost of land, the further increase in interest rates will mean that many will have to give up house building altogether unless they hive more assistance with their financial burden? Will he discuss with the Minister of Housing and Local Government the ways in which they can he helped. possibly by an increase in the expensive site subsidy, so that they can carry on building for those most in need?

Mr. Amory: The basic fact is that the demand for capital for many excellent projects greatly exceeds the resources available. That fact has to be taken into account.

Mr. H. Wilson: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while we disagree fundamentally with his policy on this matter and with the analysis which he has just given, we also feel that it is a little late to try to convert him to a more humane point of view? Arising out of that—I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will feel that this part of the supplementary question follows directly on the Question on the Order Paper—and since this is almost certainly the last Question which the right hon. Gentleman will answer as Chancellor of the Exchequer, may I ask him whether he is aware that he will take to whatever work he may now go, or to retirement, the very best wishes from all on this side of the House?

Mr. Amory: I am very grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's kind remarks, which I appreciate deeply.

Mrs. Slater: Will the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend try to realise that this question of the increased interest rates on housing is a Very real burden and a very real problem to many thousands of people in this

country? Even at this late stage, in spite of the apparent lack of interest of the Opposition, cannot the Chancellor at least persuade his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—we do not regard this as a laughing matter—that there are people in this country who are condemned to live in appalling conditions because of the policy of the Prime Minister?

Mr. Amory: There is one economic disaster which would be still worse than those which the hon. Lady has mentioned and which would mean more hardship to a greater number of people than anything else—and that is a return of inflation.

BRITISH ARMY (STRATEGIC RESERVE, KENYA)

Mr. Dugdale: (by Private Notice)asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement about the Government's decision to send a battalion of the Duke of Wellington's Regiment to Kenya.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): This battalion is being moved to reinforce the element of the Strategic Reserve in Kenya.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that on no account will this battalion be placed at the disposal of the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland?

Mr. Soames: The purpose of the Strategic Reserve is to be placed in such a way that it can act with the greatest speed according to the decisions taken by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Paget: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if troops are to be used in the Rhodesias there are a good many of us who would he extremely thankful to feel that they were responsible to him and not to the Government of Rhodesia? Can he tell us Why this has happened so suddenly? Why have people suddenly been withdrawn from their leave? Is the emergency in Kenya, in the Rhodesias or in Katanga? Clearly, there is some emergency.

Mr. Soames: The purpose of the Strategic Reserve is that it should be


available to be moved quickly. I think that the House is glad that it can be moved very quickly once the Government take the decision that units of it should be moved. The bulk of the Strategic Reserve is in this country, but there is an element of it—two full battalions—in Kenya. The decision was taken by Her Majesty's Government that we should reinforce that element which is in Kenya. Once that decision was taken, the Strategic Reserve moved very rapidly.

Mr. Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the battalion is not being moved in connection with the internal situation in Kenya? Is he aware that if, unfortunately, there has to be work in aid of the civil power in Africa, we very much prefer that it should be done by a British Regular battalion rather than by locally-raised forces from the white population in Africa?

Mr. Soames: The object of the move was to reinforce the Strategic Reserve in Kenya. It has nothing to do with any troubles in Kenya itself.

CARDOWAN COLLIERY, STEPPES (EXPLOSION)

Miss Herbison: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the explosion at Cardowan Colliery, Steppes, which occurred yesterday.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): An underground part of Cardowan Colliery had been sealed off because of a fire in January, and the accident took place yesterday when it was being reopened.
Three men were killed and seven suffered burns as the result of an explosion. Her Majesty's inspectors are investigating the circumstances of the accident, and I have directed Mr. H. R. Houston, Her Majesty's Deputy Chief Inspector of Mines, to make a special report on the accident under Section 121 of the Mines and Quarries Act, 1954.
I am sure that the House will join me in sending deep sympathy to the families and friends of the men who were killed; and hope for the quick recovery of those who were injured.

Miss Herbison: I thank the Minister for that statement and associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with his expression of sympathy for the families of the bereaved and the injured. I am sure that he recognises that there is great sorrow in this area, because it was only last October that, about three miles away, 47 lives were lost in another pit explosion.

CONTROL OF EXPENDITURE (PROCEDURE)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): The various suggestions made for the improvement of our procedure in relation to the control of expenditure, have been carefully considered, and I have had the opportunity of discussing the problem through the usual channels and with hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am now in a position to inform the House of certain proposals which should be put into effect next Session. They are as follows: The Select Committee on Estimates will be increased in membership from 36 to 43 Members in order that the Committee may set up an additional sub-Committee. It is hoped that it will be found practicable for one of the sub-Committees to examine and report briefly upon the spring Supplementary Estimates.
This will become an early and urgent task for the Committee each Session because, as the House is aware, spring Supplementary Estimates cannot be presented many weeks before they are required to be passed by the Committee of Supply at the end of the financial year.
It is also proposed that the Committee, in addition to its detailed examination of selected Estimates, should be asked to examine the principal variations between the Estimates before the House and those of the preceding year. Its Report would provide the House with a basis upon which to debate Government expenditure in the autumn.
New opportunities during the Session for debate on Reports from the Estimates Committee and from the Public Accounts Committee will be provided on three days on the Floor of the House. One of these days will be in Government time; two will be allotted Supply days—one which the Opposition have agreed to allocate, and the other to take the


place of the day upon which you, Mr. Speaker, are moved out of the Chair on Civil Estimates.
This particular day is, in effect, a private Members' day on a subject decided by ballot. In view of the purpose to which this day will be put, the Government hope that hon. Members will accept this change and agree that this day has been successfully superseded by the additional four half-days for private Members which were allotted this Session as an experiment, and which I will now say, we propose to continue next Session.
If the House is to debate the Reports of this Committee more regularly, it will be important that they should be made as early as possible in the Session and be somewhat shorter than at present.
The Estimates Committee already performs an important task and the Government, as well as the House generally, are grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who serve on the Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the Chairman, tells me that he and his Committee will do their utmost to meet the wishes of the House.
There will be published in the autumn a White Paper on the investment programmes in the public sector including, of course, the nationalised industries.
In the Government's view, this White Paper and any Reports which may be received from the Select Committee on the nationalised industries would provide suitable subjects for debate on the three days which are customarily allocated out of Government time for debates on the Reports from the various boards themselves.
One day will definitely be allocated before Christmas, when it would presumably be the wish of the House to debate the investment programmes set out in the autumn White Paper.
There has been a demand for a financial debate to take place in the autumn apart from any day set aside for that purpose in the debate on the Address. It may well be that this could take place on a Report from the Estimates Committee, such as I have already suggested, or by some other suitable procedure.
As the House is aware, a Committee under Lord Plowden's chairmanship is engaged upon a review of the methods

of control of public expenditure. The Government will from time to time report to the House the conclusions that they have reached as a result of advice given by Lord Plowden's Committee. It is too early yet to say whether these are likely to bear upon the procedures for control of expenditure by this House.
The recent Select Committee on Procedure referred to the uneven distribution of allotted Supply days during the Session. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that it would be an advantage to the Opposition if they could be given certain days before Christmas to initiate debates. It is, therefore, proposed to make the necessary arrangements to take two or more allotted Supply days before Christmas.
There have also been suggestions made that the Opposition, who, by custom, choose subjects for debate on the allotted Supply days, should debate the broad field of a particular Estimate rather than specific subjects. The Opposition have never denied that on some occasions debates should arise on selected Estimates in Committee of Supply without specifying any particular subject and they are prepared to continue to divide their time between the various methods. But they reserve their right to arrange these matters at their discretion, having regard to the custom of the House.
I hope that the House will feel that these proposals make a distinct improvement in our procedure. Hon. Members will wish to study my statement and for that reason I suggest that it would be generally convenient to defer any debate on the proposals until we resume in the autumn, when I shall hope to provide an opportunity for a short debate.

Mr. Gaitskell: I think that the House generally will agree that it is desirable to give hon. Members an opportunity to study this rather long and somewhat complicated statement. I am glad to learn that we are to have an opportunity of debating it when we return in the autumn. Meanwhile, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can clear up one or two points.
First, may I take it that the allocation of debates on the Reports of the Estimates Committee and the Public Accounts Committee will be agreed between the two sides of the House—for


instance, whether it should be a Report from one Committee or the other—and not settled simply by the Government? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, when we return in the autumn, he expects that there will be available a Report, either from the Estimates Committee or from the Public Accounts Committee, which can be debated before Christmas, as, I think, was implied in the statement? Thirdly, may we take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Lord Plowden's Committee that a report will be published as a result of its efforts?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that we can guarantee that the Plowden Committee's report necessarily will be published. What I said was that the Government would make a report upon it. I will discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The allocation of the debates on Reports from the Estimates Committee or from the Public Accounts Committee obviously should be done in the most catholic way and to the general satisfaction of the House. Naturally, I would wish to discuss that matter through the usual channels. I would also wish to satisfy hon. Members outside the usual channels in choosing reports which were suitable for a proper debate. I hope that we may discuss that matter.
The other point concerned the Report which may be made by the Estimates Committee on the comparison of the projected Estimates as between one year and another which should form the basis of a debate in the autumn. I have already discussed that with the Chairman of the Estimates Committee, and, while reserving his position absolutely, I would hope that such work would be done in the interval by the Estimates Committee so that in the autumn it may be possible to use that type of report as the basis for a debate.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May I ask whether my right hon. Friend's announcement about the Select Committee on Estimates and public expenditure will involve an increased demand upon the number of Clerks required? If so, will he bear in mind that that staff is already considerably overstrained and that it would be tragic if, to strengthen

the Estimates Committee and Public Accounts Committee, there were to be any falling off in the very high standard set by the Clerks of the Select Committees?

Mr. Butler: I think that a good deal will turn on the servicing of the Estimates Committee. I have informed the Clerk of the House of the interest taken in this matter by hon. Members on both sides. We are already very much indebted to the Clerks, but I think that anybody will agree that, if they are overstretched, they cannot be expected to give the service which the Estimates Committee would desire. I am sure, therefore, that it is the wish of the House as a whole that the already excellent record of the Clerks should be carried further into the future in a satisfactory way.

Mr. Turton: First, on behalf of the Estimates Committee, may I thank my right hon. Friend for his reference to the Committee? The work, not only of the staff, but of the five chairmen of subcommittees, who are drawn from both sides of the House and whose excellent work carries the Estimates Committee at present, will he very much harder. If the Committee is to look at the Supplementary Estimates, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he can give an assurance that they will be in the hands of the Select Committee before the House resumes in January? If not, it will be impossible for us to report to the House before the end of the financial year.
In answer to the question put, I think, by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, may I say that the Estimates Committee has made five Reports to the House since June. These will be published by the Stationery Office during the Summer Recess. It will be quite impossible for the Estimates Committee to review the present variation in expenditure before we resume in October. I hope that when it meets the Select Committee will agree to do that next year so that in October, 1961, the House will have material for a report.

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that the House will have noted his latter remark. I will note what he has in mind about the provision of the Supplementary Estimates in time.

Mr. H. Wilson: I am sure that both sides of the House regard what the Leader of the House has said as being on the right lines, because, while the House cannot go into major questions of policy when discussing finance, what we must be concerned with is getting value for money, which is the real duty both of the Select Committee of which the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Mahon (Mr. Turton) is Chairman, and the Public Accounts Committee.
Since all of us, I am sure, will welcome the decision that time should be given to debating the Reports of these Committees, and since the right hon. Gentleman mentioned possible changes in the timetable of the Estimates Committee, may I ask him whether he will say why he has not had any discussion with the Public Accounts Committee? I cannot speak for the members of that Committee and say whether they would have any views about the possibility of staggering Reports so that it would be for the greater convenience of the House, but is he aware that many of the subjects inevitably dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee are con-trilling items of expenditure—they are not just post-mortems on a past year—which would be reflected in next year's Estimates and the Estimates thereafter?
Therefore, before coming to any final conclusion, will the right hon. Gentleman give members of the Public Acounts Committee an opportunity to consider what adjustments they might want to make in their proceedings and what part they can play in a joint venture which, I am sure, will be highly successful as a result of the work of the two Committees?

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that what we propose is on the right lines. What is important is that we should get not only a Select body in two places, Estimates and Public Accounts, examining the figures, but also, for the first time, a relationship with the Floor of the House. I therefore think that what we propose is an improvement.
The right hon. Gentleman's request about the Public Accounts Committee is entirely reasonable. We want to take a little more time, and perhaps have a discussion on resumption in the autumn. I will certainly take the right hon. Gentleman's advice.

Sir J. Duncan: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question on something which was not quite clear to me? I understand that the Leader of the Opposition has asked for two Supply days before Christmas. Will the Estimates be published before Christmas? If not, haw can we have Supply days?

Mr. Butler: There is apt to be confusion owing to the complexity of the statement, but the reference to advancing Supply days before Christmas is separate from the three days allocated in which we consider the Estimates and Public Accounts. This is simply an advance of the Supply procedure. In so far as the Opposition might wish one of those Supply days to be devoted to considering Estimates, that would refer to my hon. Friend's point, but, otherwise, they would be ordinary Supply days at the discretion of the Opposition, simply advanced before Christmas. The other arrangements for Christmas would follow the rest of the lines of my statement.

Mr. Gaitskell: Would I be right in assuming that the debate will take place on the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair"?

Mr. Butler: Yes, it could well do so.

Mr. Grimond: First, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he can arrange for his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) to present the Reports earlier to allow time for consideration it would be greatly appreciated by the House? Secondly, on the question of Supply days, when we debate these proposals in the autumn, as I hope we shall, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether he can make a more definite statement about examination of particular expenditure on those days, because one of the complaints has been that the House tends to pass very large sums of money with no examination at all? Whatever the Estimates Committee or other Committees may do, there are some of us in the House who feel that from time to time, at any rate, on Supply days particular Estimates should be examined by the House.

Mr. Butler: In answer to the hon. Member's last question, certainly we have in mind a particular day, probably on a Motion, in the autumn. This year, it will not have particular reference to the


important Report which we want to get from the Estimates Committee in another year on the varying trends of the accounts. This year, it might well be on a general Motion, which would not inhibit the House from considering the type of detail which the hon. Member has in mind. We want to do that in any case. While this year may not be as successful as the year after, I hope that by a process of trial and error we will get this right. We do not want to avoid the type of debate which the hon. Member has in mind. It will be possible to examine earlier Reports from the Committee on Estimates. This year, we must simply take the Reports which have already been published.

Mr. Nabarro: My right hon. Friend will recall that in dealing with Clause 72 of the Finance Bill, concerning Exchequer advances to nationalised industries, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised the Committee that a full statement would be made in the autumn about Parliamentary facilities for examining individually the capital allocations of nationalised industries and voting the sums concerned before the money is spent. Does my right hon. Friend's reference to a White Paper on public expenditure, which is a sort of compendium of all public expenditure, give those precise facilities to my hon. Friends and myself to examine the individual capital allocations of nationalised industries and not in a single comprehensive form on a sort of innocuous Motion to take note of a White Paper, which would be useless to my hon. Friends and myself?

Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend must not be too ungallant.

Mr. Nabarro: I did not mean to be ungallant.

Mr. Butler: This is a generous suggestion by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The original suggestion, which I read in the debate on the Finance Bill, was that the investment programmes of the nationalised industries should be published. To make the scope wider, my right hon. Friend has since suggested that the publication should be about investment programmes in the public sector, including the nationalised industries. That should

give an opportunity to hon. and right hon. Members to examine these matters in the autumn.
My right hon. Friend also told the House that he would publish another White Paper in February or March on the estimated figures of borrowings to meet the programmes of the nationalised industries during the ensuing financial year. In these two respects, therefore, there will be a considerable advance, of which, I hope, my hon. and right hon. Friends will take full opportunity.

Mr. Woodburn: Is there any reason why public investment or public advances should be examined only in so far as they are concerned with nationalised industries? Since so much money is now being invested in the other leg of the mixed economy, is it not proper that the whole question of public money advanced for industry, whether nationalised or private, should be examined?

Mr. Butler: That is why my right hon. Friend suggested the enlargement of the White Paper which he has offered to cover investment programmes in the public sector.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the Leader of the House be a little more specific about this? If he read the debate to which his hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred, which took place at about two o'clock in the morning—

Mr. Nabarro: That was not my fault. It was the right hon. Gentleman's fault.

Mr. Wilson: That was why the Leader of the House was not present; that is why I referred to it.
If the right hon. Gentleman had read the account of that debate, be would find that on that occasion we from this bench pressed that if there was to be a change of this kind pit should apply, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suggested, to any capital assistance in any shape or form to private industry as well as a public industry. We pressed that at the time.
Since the right hon. Gentleman now says that it is being extended from nationalised industries to all investment in the public sector, which one understands to mean local authorities and the


Government sector generally, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us plainly whether 'the White Paper will cover, for each year ahead, the expenditure Which is expected to be provided in the form of financial assistance, loans or subsidies to private enterprise as well as to nationalised industry?

Mr. Butler: The intention of my right hon. Friend in making his statement, of which I took full cognisance, although it took place at two o'clock in the morning, was that this Should apply to expenditure below the line. It does not apply to grant expenditure, but to expenditure below the line. That is a distinct advance upon what my right hon. Friend said in the early hours of the morning. This is still early days before the White Paper is published. We will certainly pay attention to all the requests which are made. I am sure that it is the wish of my right hon. Friend to be as helpful as he can.

Mr. Peyton: Will the financial debate in the autumn afford the House a full opportunity of discussing both expenditure and taxation on the same day?

Mr. Butler: What we are trying to do is to discover a system under which the procedure of the House allows us to dis-

cuss precisely those points which my hon. Friend has mentioned. Lord Campion's memorandum originally suggested that the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" should be freed from the rule restricting it to matters which do not involve legislation. We are following up Lord Campion's memorandum and trying to find a form of Motion which will not inhibit my hon. Friend from putting forward his views on matters such as those to which he pays attention.

Mr. Albu: I Should like to ask a question concerning the proposal that the Select Committee should report on the differences in the Estimates between one year and the next. Will not this involve the Select Committee in a change in its terms of reference to consider policy, whereas in the past it has considered only administration?

Mr. Butler: It does not involve a complete alteration of the terms. I have, however, discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee. It is too detailed a matter to go into at Question Time. If the hon. Member wishes to discuss it with me, we might, 'before our debate in the autumn, find a more satisfactory wording to cover the situation.

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th October.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

3.57 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Fell: I do not believe that the House of Commons should adjourn for a holiday at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have been in the House of Commons the comparatively short time of nearly ten years and I have never attempted to take up the time of the House frivolously. I take up the time of the House this afternoon only because I feel so intensely that this is a serious time, both for the future of Britain and of those people for whom we have considerable responsibility, particularly those in Africa.
I should like, as would all other hon. Members, to spend the next few weeks, and, indeed, the next three months, with my constituents. I believe, however, that they can well do without me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted to find the tremendous support from both sides of the House for my plea that we should not agree to this Motion, except under certain conditions.
The situation in Africa is so charged with difficulty, so prone to misunderstandings and sudden conflagration, as, indeed, there is at the moment, that it is not fair to leave the whole matter in the hands of Her Majesty's Government without being able to have the advice of the back benchers of the House of Commons in coming to a decision.
It may be asked, why not leave the affairs of the Congo and of United Nations troops during the holidays to Her Majesty's Government? The reason why I would not like to leave it to Her Majesty's Government—and I must be frank—is that I believe that Her Majesty's Government are paralysed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This may evoke a certain amount of laughter on the Government Front Bench, but, quite frankly, the prospect of going on holiday when the Government are in the state of being completely unable to make up their mind about the future of these grave questions does not cause me any merriment at all.
We are now talking about adjourning for three solid months, when, in the past few weeks, we have had an appeal from a friend for help, and that has been turned down. We have even had a further appeal for help from a friend, and that has also been turned down, and we are now in the extraordinary position that we are about to go on holiday for three months with no indication what the Government's policy is in regard to the situation in the Congo and that part of Africa.
I am most worried because of a statement which was made yesterday by the Foreign Secretary. I am trying very carefully, Mr. Speaker, to keep within the bounds of order, because I do not want to take up the time of the House from the disarmament debate, though, possibly, we should be talking about arming the Africans against the poverty and insecurity which they now have rather than disarmament. I want to give my reasons why I do not think we should leave the Government to carry on purely in their own summary sort of way in the next three months.
In reply to a Question yesterday, the Foreign Secretary said, and I quote from HANSARD:
I hope the United Nations Secretary-General will act in a mediatory role and will succeed in solving the constitutional problem, but it is not for me to express an opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 1060.]
The first thing I have to say about that is: why express an opinion, if it was not for my right hon. and learned Friend to express one? The second thing is that I have never understood why—and I know I am getting close to going beyond the rules of order here—the Secretary-General of the United Nations should have any part in solving the constitutional problem of the Congo. I have been informed that the United Nations forces have gone in there—and this has great relevance to the question whether or not we should adjourn for three months—for the exclusive and sole purpose of protecting life and restoring public order in that territory.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Public order with no constitution?

Mr. Fell: I thank the hon. Member.
It is impossible for United Nations forces to go into that territory—when there is a Prime Minister who has never been a Prime Minister, a Government which has never been a Government—without it having a political effect on the Constitution of that country. I am extremely worried about what is to happen, mainly in Katanga, but in general in other parts of the Congo, during the time that we shall be in recess. I am worried not only because of Katanga Province, not only because of the Congo itself, but because of the tremendous effect that the resolution of all these difficulties will have on the whole of Africa, and, indeed, on other parts of the world as well.
We have already seen, and we have not even been in recess, the effect of the fleeing, perhaps needless fleeing, of whites from Katanga on other Africans in closely related parts of Africa. We do not know is how great will be the effect of arty wrong decision, or, even more, of indecision on the part of Her Majesty's Government during the Recess, if they are no: supported and helped by the back benchers of the House of Commons.
I want to cut my speech as short as possible, and I will say practically no more, but I would certainly—

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. Member is making the point that United Nations forces have no right, under international law or any other law, to enter the Congo. Would he agree that these forces have as much right to go into the Congo as the forces which he supported had in going into Suez?

Mr. Speaker: I did not understand the hut. Member to be making that point, but if he was, he has gone out of the limits of the rules of order in this context.

Mr. Fell: On your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply to that interruption, but may I say that if I am called a rebel for supporting right causes, perhaps it would be well were we all rebels.
I wish to have an assurance from the Prime Minister—and I am sorry that he cannot be present, though I completely understand—if I am to support this Motion, that Parliament will be recalled if our friend, the friend of the West, Mr. Tshombe, should at any time make

another appeal to this country or to any of our friends. Secondly, I should like to have an assurance that Parliament will be recalled immediately if there is any substantial talk of United Nations forces entering into the State of Katanga.
Thirdly, and I do not make this a condition—[Laughter.] All right, I am only one Member, but I have a right to make conditions. I do not make this a condition, but I would ask that the Government will recall Parliament within a fortnight—[An HON. MEMBER: "So soon?"]—in any case. I know that some people will be at Scarborough, that sensible people will be in Great Yarmouth, and that some will be at Cannes. But I ask the Government to recall Parliament to discuss the latest developments in this matter, at any rate between two and three weeks from the time when we go into recess, because I do not believe that it is right that we should leave this whole matter in the air, as we shall be leaving it on Friday, for three months, if things remain as they are.
I make this appeal in all humility, not in any way wishing to stop anybody's fun, but wanting to see that Britain, who has, after all, brought upon herself these tremendous responsibilities, not only in Africa but in many other parts of the world, shall not worry about a few weeks' holiday, but will preserve a sense of duty towards her responsibilities.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I find myself in agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has said, although I must say that in relation to the problem of Katanga the Government have so far taken an attitude which I am sure will meet with the broad approval of most right hon. and hon. Members of the House. I want, however, to speak about British responsibilities in Rhodesia.
I believe that a situation has developed in Southern Rhodesia, where a large section of the population there is being threatened by disorders, that it is necessary that the United Kingdom should exercise its responsibilities in regard to that territory. It is quite obvious that the caretaker Administration of Sir Edgar Whitehead, which represents only a tiny minority of the population of Southern Rhodesia, is quite unable to


obtain the good will and support of the overwhelming mass of the population in Southern Rhodesia, even of the European minority, and I should be very unhappy if we were to adjourn for three months while the situation in Southern Rhodesia gets out of hand without back benchers on both sides of the House being able to influence the Government in the action they take in regard to the situation there.
I should like to ask the Leader of the House to give assurances to the House on two counts. First, that he, as Leader of the House, during the Recess will ensure that all Members of Parliament will be able to exercise their responsibilities in any territory in Africa for which we are responsible. That is the first point I want him to give us an assurance about.
The other assurance I want is that in view of the fact that the questions raised by hon. Members during the Recess must be made by correspondence, because the House is not sitting—I would ask the Leader of the House to pay careful attention to this—and in view of the fact that we must make representations direct to Ministers, can we have an assurance that our correspondence to Ministers will remain confidential and will be dealt with personally by Ministers and not be passed on to other Governments for them to deal in matters with which Members of the House are concerned?
I ask for an assurance from the Leader of the House about the situation in Southern Rhodesia in regard to the revision of the Constitution. We understand that there will be an official deputation in September leaving for Southern Rhodesia to continue discussions on the future of the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. We have already had an assurance in the House from the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that there will be no change in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, no withdrawal of the protective clauses which enable the United Kingdom to protect the rights of Africans in that territory, unless African interests are considered. We have had that categorical assurance.
The point I want to have an assurance on is that there will be no deal made in September with the Government of Sir Edgar Whitehead in Southern Rhodesia

without this House being recalled and being consulted about a matter which is of great concern to 2½ million Africans in that territory.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: I rise to support the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). The proposition before the House is that we should adjourn at the end of this week for three months and that as individual, private Members of Parliament we should abdicate our responsibilities and hand them over to a Government whose Foreign Secretary is unknown to us and whose policy is undecided.
I myself have no criticism of the choice of the Foreign Secretary being from either this House or from the other. It seems to me that the one all-important thing in these matters is that one should pick the right person, and that it is the right person and the right policies which are the ones to be supported. But when we do not appear at this moment to know who the person is, whether he be right or wrong, and what the policies are, whether they be right or wrong, it appears to be the wrong moment at which to foreclose on our responsibilities and hand them over to a Government whose policy is uncertain.
When situations such as this in the Congo, situations both dangerous and volatile, are likely to spark off controversies, perhaps hatred, perhaps bitterness, perhaps bloodshed in Africa, it is not the moment for this House smugly, comfortably and conveniently to go away to the hot and sunny climes or to the wet and windy shores of Britain.
There is no effective central Government in the Congo and there has not been effective Government or an effective State in the Congo since the advent of what has been called independence. There has been chaos; there has been rape; there has been anarchy; and there has been bloodshed. There has been, in addition, the accusation that the Belgians abdicated their responsibilities and left chaos behind.
Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth because the Belgians left in the Congo people capable of carrying on the administration.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Member and the House that there are limits to this range, and we cannot.. on this Motion, debate the merits of any issue there arising.

Mr. Williams: I thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but we are deciding here today—are we not?—whether we can hand over responsibility for guiding it foreign policy for three months to a Foreign Secretary who, at the moment, is unknown to us, and I think that we are entitled to ask of the Government a very clear statement of what their policy is—[HON MEMBERS: "Ask whom?"]—in this particular part of Africa for the next three months. As my hon. Friend has said, a colleague, a friend of the West, has appealed for help and for recognition. We have turned the other cheek. Are we to continue to turn the other cheek throughout the Recess? Are we to continue to let the United Nations: conduct our foreign policy? Indeed, who today is conducting our foreign policy?
Only this morning, in the B.B.C.'s news bulletins at 7.30, and again at 8.30 Mr. Hammarskjoeld is reported as having assured Mr. Lumumba that "there is no question of recognising Katanga." This is a most extraordinary statement.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but if I do not venture to hint some restraint to the hon. Member the debate will depart from the confines desired. The hon. Member is now transgressing beyond the limits of the Motion.

Mr. Williams: I want to come immediately to the point of my speech and ask: what is our foreign policy? Have we a foreign policy? Or are we playing it through the United Nations? Have the Government Front Bench decided what is to be Britain's new policy? If so, is not the House entitled to know before we go into recess for three months? The Foreign Secretary has said—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—that the United Nations is not entitled to interfere in the internal matters of the Congo. Well, then, what is to be the situation of United Nations troops? The Government Front Bench halve been partly responsible for guidance in these matters.
Surely, before we go into recess we should be assured by the Foreign Secretary, or, if he is not available, by a representative of the Foreign Office, or at least a Government spokesman, how United Nations troops are to be used. Before we pass this Motion we must be given an unequivocal and clear statement, if such a thing be possible from the Government, before the Recess, before we sanction this Motion, that they will support strength, that they will support friends, and that they will work for the maintenance of the economic and strategic interests of the Commonwealth. At present, there is no indication that they are aware of these needs.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is a long time since any of us have heard so clear and unequivocal a demonstration of no confidence in a Government by their supporters as we have been treated to in the last ten minutes. It is the first occasion for a long time on which I have found myself, at least on one point, in complete agreement with both speakers from the Government side of the House. Indeed, there is much to be said for their view.
I am not myself so greatly worried by the question whether the Foreign Secretary, after the next day or two, is to be a Member of the House of Commons or a Member of another place. It has always seemed to me that as long as the master ventriloquist remains a Member of the House of Commons it does not greatly matter where Archie Andrews sits. Therefore, I think it is possible to exaggerate the importance of that aspect of the matter.
It is certainly true that not for twenty years has the House come to the end of a Session and to the verge of going off for its long Summer Recess with the world so dangerous and frightening as it is today. It is not only Africa. I do not dissent from the view that events now taking place in the Congo are matters which have an important bearing on peace generally and on a great many questions outside their own borders and, indeed, outside Africa altogether. But I would say, on that point, that it is really not much use blaming the United Nations about it. If it were not for our membership of the United Nations, and for the existence of such an organisation,


hon. Members must realise that this country would have no right to interfere at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate the United Nations to this Motion.

Mr. Silverman: I was not proposing to debate it, Sir. It was only a point of reassurance to hon. Members opposite that on this particular matter the Government, if they wish to exercise their authority, are in a position to do at any rate something about it and take some action to bring to bear some influence in the Congo, whereas hon. Members are thinking that they are in no position to do that except by taking action pregnant with even more perilous consequences than is the situation at present.
Although one realises that the African situation is as dangerous as they say it is, that point by itself would not have influenced me to support the Motion, because I would have taken some comfort from the fact that we are members of an international organisation which is trying to bring to bear some pacific influence. I do not think that there is any dispute about that. But there are a great many other causes of anxiety. It is not only Africa. There is this whole business of international espionage, not by the use of ordinary spies but by the use of the armed forces of one country or another in the territory of another, or so close to the territory of another as to lead to international incidents.
I would not feel that it was safe for the House of Commons to adjourn for a long time without any assurance that some method for removing from the world this exceedingly perilous situation was not at least under active consideration. There is some question of the proposed resumption of nuclear tests. It has been very-clearly announced in the United States, by both parties, that there is to be a stepping-up of arms expenditure at a time when we are all deploring other people's refusal to discuss disarmament agreements with us.
I am not saying one word about the merits or about whose is the responsibility, but at a time when all of us know that the peace of the world must depend in the end on finding some agreed way of bringing this competition in nuclear armament to an end, to adjourn for three

months—at a time when one major country, the most powerful of all, is proposing not to reduce but to increase its expenditure—is really frightening. We should like to know from the Government, before we accept their Motion, what they intend to do in this matter as well as in some others.
I ventured to say a frivolous word about the controversy as to where the Foreign Secretary ought to be, but surely there is no possible ground for difference on the suggestion that came from the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) a few moments ago. At least let us know, before we adjourn, who, in the next three months, will speak for Britain in the councils of the world. We do not know. It is not a question whether he sits in one House or the other. The point is that neither House will be sitting for the next three months.
We ought to know who will speak for us, and something of what he is going to say, and not merely shut up shop and go away for three months with nothing dealt with, nothing known, no authorised spokesman, and no policy. When we reach a situation where hon. Members who are nominally supporters of the Government can make the kind of speech that was made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South it shows a situation in which the House of Commons might very well refuse to adjourn until it has a Government and a policy of which it can approve.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) were anxious that back benchers should not abdicate their responsibilities. I am more anxious that Her Majesty's Government should not abdicate their responsibilities before the House and the nation for British lives and British property and British interests in Central Africa. I am anxious that they should not deposit their responsibilities at the feet of the United Nations.

Mr. Stonehouse: Would the hon. Member also agree that we should not transfer our responsibilities to Sir Roy Welensky and Sir Edgar Whitehead?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That is a very silly intervention. Our Government will not transfer their responsibilities where they lie to any other Government.
Yesterday, the House touched for a few moments on the provocative, irresponsible and inflammatory statement made by a servant of the United Nations, General van Horn.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Mr. John Hall: Is it not a fact that he has denied making the statement attributed to him?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In that case, I am very glad to hear it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Certainly; I take what my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Hall) has said and I withdraw that. I am glad to hear that no such statement was made, but yesterday we should have liked to have heard this denial from a Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench. We asked to be reassured on these matters and we had no reassurance.
I am glad that the reassurance has now come—not from one of Her Majesty's Ministers but from one of my hon. Friends. [An HON. MEMBER: "Make him Foreign Secretary."] This is a serious question. The population of a vast country, the size of Western Europe, is to be the subject of new experiments in international colonialism. They face the possibility of hunger and disease. We are thinking of holidays, yet millions there are facing misery.
Another reason why I am doubtful whether we should go away without a clear statement of the position of Her Majesty's Government is the grave threat from all this to Britain's relations with Belgium and Belgium's relations with the other Western allies. A campaign of propaganda against Belgium has been going on, and, so far as I know, it has not yet been rebutted by any spokesman of Her Majesty's Government. It is simply not true to say that the chaos in the Congo is just the fault of the Belgians What did we do? What did the United Nations do? The Belgians left there trained men to try to help the new Government of the Congo Republic.
What happened to some of them, what happened to some of their wives and

children, is unbearable to think of even in this twentieth century of cruelty and horror. It should not be allowed to be said in this country without rebuttal that it is all the fault of the Belgians.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the Motion.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I felt very strongly that before we go away we should hear something in reply to an accusation and propaganda so dangerous to our relations with an ally and to the Western alliance as a whole.
I hope that we may hear something from the Government Front Bench about the Belgian bases in the Congo and about the treaty of friendship and assistance. We are told on some sides that there was no treaty, but may we be told what the situation is, because this is of the first importance to the Western alliance and to the security of Africa?
I do not want to detain the House longer with further mention of the question of Katanga—my views on the matter are set forth in a Motion bearing my name and the names of hon. Friends of mine—
That this House, recognising that the Government of Monsieur Tshombe has maintained peace, order and civilised standards, calls on Her Majesty's Government to uphold the independence of Katanga.
—but I should like to say that 'the future of Katanga, which, in hostile hands, would be a salient in the Federation front, is a vital British interest and a vital interest in the sterling area and the Commonwealth, and that I should feel unhappy at going away for so long a period without a convincing statement that we shall be promptly recalled if there is any threat to the integrity or independence of the Katanga State.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: It is in no way surprising, in view of the state of the world, that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be reluctant that we should adjourn for no less than three months. Moreover, one can well understand back bench hon. Members opposite who have spoken desiring to continue to offer their support and help to the Government during the anxious months that lie ahead. If they


do so in the way that they have been doing it this afternoon, I am sure that the Opposition will welcome this sign of life on the Government benches and that it would, indeed, be an additional reason for our not adjourning.
Hon. Gentlemen from the Government benches who have so far spoken were concerned primarily with the affairs of the Congo. I do not agree with their general attitude. For my part, I rejoice that the United Nations has taken this matter in hand. However great the difficulties may be—I would not deny that there are great difficulties—it is to some extent reassuring and hopeful that the United Nations should find itself in what is a new and, maybe, extremely important venture.
But I agree with the hon. Members that the position in the Congo continues to cause great anxiety. It is not only the position in the Congo. There are other parts of Africa about which we are deeply concerned. There is, for instance, the situation in Rhodesia. I know that we have difficulty in getting any answers from the Government about Southern Rhodesia. Indeed, I sometimes feel that we are getting into the ridiculous situation when we can ask Questions and make speeches about foreign countries, but may not do so about Commonwealth countries; and that is not, I think, very satisfactory. We are concerned about what is happening there.
There is an important conference just beginning about the future constitution and development of Nyasaland. I hope it goes well, though it has begun under rather stormy conditions. We have only today had the announcement of the movement of British troops to Kenya. All of these things certainly are matters of very grave concern. Not only in Africa and not only in this particular field are there sources of anxiety. The incident of the RB47 is still being discussed in the Security Council of the United Nations, and we have not yet come, I suppose, to the end of that story.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is perfectly right to refer, also, to disarmament and nuclear tests. Incidentally, it is really very regrettable that we should have to have this debate sandwiched in before a debate on disarmament, which

I know none of us wishes to delay unduly.
For all these reasons—one can think of many others, such as the rather unsatisfactory position of our export trade and the anxieties which the Government, I know, have about our balance of payments—the least that we can demand from the Government is that they should not hesitate to recall Parliament if the situation requires it and that they will certainly give very careful consideration to any representations which may be made to them from either side of the House during the Recess that we should be recalled.
There are, however, also some matters which must be dealt with before we go into recess. My hon. Friends have mentioned some of these. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) asked for an assurance that no commitment would be made so far as Southern Rhodesia is concerned which altered the present situation and our responsibilities under the existing legislation. I cordially endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
There is another matter about which I hope we shall hear from the Government before Friday. This is the discussion on the control over American bases in Britain. Obviously, this is not the occasion to go into that in detail. I will only say that this is a matter which has caused a great deal of concern, whatever our views may be on those bases. I think that we generally agree, on both sides, that the Government must be able to control what those bases are used for and that there must be some sort of dual control over their use as we have been assured exists in the case of emergency and the use of nuclear weapons. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us that the Government will make a statement on these negotiations before we rise.
Another matter is the extraordinary situation of the Government. I cannot recall an occasion, certainly in recent history, when there has been for so long so much uncertainly about who is to do what job—certainly not since the 1951 General Election, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), forming a new Government on that occasion, took


rather a long time about it. But here we have a Government which is supposed to be in existence, and yet none of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Government Front Bench know were they will be. We do not even know whether the Home Secretary is to stay there.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, he is.

Mr. Gaitskell: After all, there is the possibility that he may go to the Foreign Office. For all I know, he may even go to another place. Personally, I would prefer the Home Secretary. There is something in what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Ede: But my right hon. Friend did not see the right hen. Gentleman before the war, when he served as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Gaitskell: I will not go into this odious comparison too far, but I must press the Government on this matter.
First, can we be assured that the long-awaited announcement about the Government changes will be made before we rise and may I also have an assurance that in discussions through the usual channels arrangements will be made for a debate should the unusual step be taken of appointing a Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when this was last done, in 1938, there was a debate and the House divided on the subject. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to give us that assurance, because I am bound to say that without it I should find it very difficult to ask my hon. Friends to refrain from dividing on the Motion.

4.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): It might be convenient if I answer immediately some of the anxieties which have been expressed. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition went over a number of subjects and I might perhaps save time by dealing at once with the last point he raised, namely, what he described as the situation of the Government.
It has been known for some time that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished to resign his office, and I am sure that we were all much gratified with the tribute paid to him by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) at Question Time today. It follows simply from that decision—a personal one which I and many of us very much regret—that there should be certain changes, because if somebody leaves then somebody else must take his place. It is as simple at that.
The Prime Minister, therefore, has to make up his mind as to who should go there and the consequent changes which may or may not take place. It has been asked why these changes should have been delayed. That also stems from the Chancellor's decision that he ought to finish the duties allocated to him. The Finance Bill had to pass through its latter stages, and he also had duties to finish in Paris, which he recently visited. Naturally, therefore, there was delay, pending his retirement, before his successor could be appointed.
The situation is much simpler than the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition makes out. Nevertheless, it is gratifying to the Government that there should be such anxiety and interest as to who is to succeed to this important office. Indeed, there is such a wealth of material—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that it is very difficult for the Prime Minister to choose between the various contending aspirants. However, the right hon. Gentleman may rest assured that his great anxiety is rapidly coming to an end and that the canard on which he has been subsisting for his meagre diet is about to be shot.
I can now say that the announcement about the Government changes will be made tomorrow by the Prime Minister. What is more important—the right hon. Gentleman wanted to know whether there will be opportunity for debate. The answer is, yes. There have already been some preliminary soundings and it would be our idea that there should be a discussion, if desired, on Thursday, if the contingency to which the right hon. Gentleman referred came about. There will, therefore, be an opportunity on Thursday when, I hope, the Government will be able to stand up and justify their position and when the Opposition will be able to debate these matters. I hope


that that is all fair and above board. There will be a statement and Members will be able to discuss it.
As for the right hon. Gentleman's attempts to find out who is to move and who is not to move, some of us have been under some pressure from certain of the brighter journalistic circles for some time. Our characters have been dissected for some weeks past; our jealousies of each other have been patently set out in all the public sheets. We have withstood this terrible ordeal with some success, especially those of us who are to remain in the same positions. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot draw me any further about these mysteries than he has already done, except that I can satisfy him on the fundamental point which he made.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of a statement about United States bases. I shall discuss that immediately with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I cannot go further than that at the moment, because, of course, a satisfactory statement depends on further progress being made with the consultations. It is, however, a serious point and it will be discussed.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned certain other difficulties, in which he followed the line of debate—problems of Africa raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), the problem raised by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) and others including my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).
The short answer to all of these points is that it is usual, when we have a debate like this, that an airing of outstanding difficulties is undertaken by conscientious Members, but the situation really depends upon the clear answer by the Government that, if necessary, Standing Order No. 112 will be invoked. That Order reads:
Whenever the House stands adjourned and it is represented to Mr. Speaker by Her Majesty's Ministers that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker, if he is satisfied that the public interest does so require, may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice.

It is quite right that the Government should have been asked whether we intend to invoke that procedure if necessary. I can give an assurance that that is our intention. The decision, as seen in this Standing Order, depends upon the approach and the decision made by Her Majesty's Ministers in approaching Mr. Speaker. Of course we would pay attention as I have said in answering debates of this kind in previous years, to any representations which we regarded as weighty, and also take into account any questions raised by my hon. Friends or by Members opposite or by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
I hope, therefore, that the House will see that we are not trying to be unconstitutional. My predecessors in office as Leader of the House, and I, have always said that it is reasonable for the House to have a break. Those who have sat through our July debates realise always at this time of year—the "dog days"—that it is important to have a bit of a break from time to time. It is important for a Member to meet his own constituents. I hope that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth will enjoy him and that he will enjoy them, too.
It is important for some of us to have a little holiday and to refresh ourselves in order to tackle the problems which lie before us. Throughout all this time the Executive will remain in action. There will be no going back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell said, on British lives, British interests or British property in Central Africa, or in any of the weighty and important matters brought before us today. I can give an assurance that the Government, fortified as they will be after the statement tomorrow, will fully be able to meet the desires of the House, and, what is more important, to serve the interests of the country.

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he, as Leader of the House, during the Recess, give all possible support to back benchers on both sides in their own efforts to fulfil their responsibilities as Members of Parliament? Could he also give an assurance that when Members make representations by correspondence to Ministers, those representations will be dealt with personally by Ministers and not by civil servants?

Mr. Butler: I am glad to give an assurance about ensuring that Members will be able to exercise their responsibilities. I can certainly give an assurance on behalf of my colleagues—and I will see that it is widely known—that Members can continue to perform, in their relations with the Executive, all their responsibilities properly during the Recess.
The hon. Member raised the question of correspondence. I will make a particular note of that, and see that it is also widely known that correspondence should he treated as personal—I prefer that word to "confidential", because some of the contents may have to be used in relation to the points raised. This will be treated, as it should be, as personal correspondence from a responsible Member.

Mr. Fell: Everybody enjoyed my right hon. Friend's charming and witty speech immensely and none of us minded being referred to as airing cupboards. However, I ask him whether he would not at least consider this alternative assurance to the one which I asked for: would he give a wider assurance that if the situation in the Congo and Katanga—I emphasise "and Katanga "—should deteriorate in any great measure he will recall Parliament?

Mr. Butler: All I can say is that in previous years when there has been a question on the international scene which has involved all the magnitude that this situation in Africa might well involve, it has been the practice for Parliament to be recalled, because Parliament is the aide, and rightly so, of the Executive, and representatives of the people should certainly not be left out of the considerations if any issues of great magnitude arise.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. J. Grimond: While we are grateful to the Leader of the House for what are, in fact, routine promises, that if anything goes wrong he will listen to representations and recall the House, we cannot leave the matter there.
To begin with, when the right hon. Gentleman says that the Executive will carry on as usual, many of us regard that as a threat rather than a promise. We have had a feeling, which apparently

is widely shared by hon. Members opposite, that of late Government foreign policy has been compounded of equal parts of gimmicks and soft soap. We do not have much confidence about leaving foreign policy in their hands.
I have a great deal of sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell). My point of view about the action of the United Nations is completely different from his, but I agree that it is an extremely important departure. I view it as a highly necessary job. It is certainly an extremely important departure for the Government, who did not take the view at the time of Suez that it was proper for the United Nations to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, which is what the United Nations is now doing.
Before we adjourn, we should be told by the Foreign Secretary, if he is still with us, what directions have been given to the United Nations force. What are its terms of reference? Whatever view is taken, we would all like to know how far that force can go. How much discretion has been given to the Secretary General? What are its resources? Are we supplying the United Nations with the police and technical forces which may be necessary? I hope that we can have a statement about those matters before the House rises for the Summer Recess.
It is all very well for the Leader of the House to say that some time tomorrow we will get a statement on the appointment of the new Foreign Secretary and other Government appointments, but that is cutting the matter extremely fine. This is something of not only great general importance, but some constitutional importance. I ask the Government to bear in mind that one of the developments in our work which has been most noticable over recent years has been the growing importance of Question Time in the House. Question Time is a purely British institution and I think that no other Parliamentary tradition has anything of the kind.
Its importance rests on the fact that senior Ministers come to the House and are personally available to answer Questions. If the Prime Minister goes away, though he frequently leaves a most distinguished and experienced deputy here, those of us who put down Questions to


the Prime Minister receive a note to say that he will not be present at Question Time and to ask whether we would like to defer our Questions. It is never assumed that even his most distinguished deputy can take the place of the Minister responsible.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Motion.

Mr. Grimond: I may be going wide of the Motion, but this is an unusual position.
As the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, we are not usually left in this confusion, with the Government leaking things to the Press about what may or may not happen after so long a delay. In particular, we are not usually left in this position within two days of rising for three months. Nor are we usually left in this position when our foreign policy has been completely in the doldrums ever since the Summit meeting and without knowing who is to be appointed as Foreign Secretary because the Conservative Party is either embarrassed by the mass of riches on the benches opposite, or because it cannot find any one at all there. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to say be a few words about this matter because of its constitutional importance.
I think that it will be agreed that nowadays the interest of the country and the interest of back bench Members and of the Press is largely centred on Question Time. If we are to weaken that, then we are doing something serious. If it is said that Ministers are extremely busy and must think—and no one is more in favour of Ministers thinking than I am—that may all be true, but, nevertheless, in the light of modern trends, this is a dangerous precedent. If we are to be left at the end of the Session with the possibility a day or two before rising that senior Ministers of the Government are to be appointed in another place and that we have exactly 24 hours to consider the matter, we should be able to make our views known.

4.55 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I wish only briefly to touch on one subject, and if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wants to interrupt me I will gladly give way to permit him to answer my question.
My right hon. Friend has said that tomorrow we are to have a statement about what changes there are to be in the membership of the Government. I would like an assurance from him that that will be done simply and solely because, fairly soon afterwards, we shall be going into recess, and that we will not establish a precedent by which a Cabinet change has to be announced in the House of Commons before it can be approved.
It would be a most deplorable state of affairs if we should establish a precedent whereby no Cabinet change could take place unless it was announced in the House of Commons. However remote may be his chance of becoming the Prime Minister, I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will agree that any Prime Minister must be given the right to choose the team which he wants around him. It is for us to judge after that whether those men face up to their responsibilities. As to where they sit, so long as they are the right men, I do not care.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: I take no comfort from the speech of the Leader of the House and I rise to oppose the Motion. In doing so, perhaps I should congratulate the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), who spoke so courageously, although I disagreed almost entirely with the substance of what they said.
We are concerned today with whether Parliament should be dismissed for three whole months and whether this House of Commons should join those Legislatures all over Western Europe which have been sterilised by autocratic Executives and deprived of the right of expressing their democratic views.
In this matter, one has to look at the whole scene to see the extraordinary contrast between the inertia of the Parliamentary democracies, now going on holiday, and the agitation in the non and undemocratic countries. During August, the United Nations will continue to sit and discuss most important issues, but, in addition, the trial of the U2 pilot will take place in Moscow, with all the sinister consequences which may well flow from it.
Although the date of the opening of the trial, 12th August, may clash with a major event at home and although, in the ordinary course of events, it would not distract us from our preoccupation, the fact is that all the time the Western democracies will be on holiday the Soviet Union will be occupying itself with those major matters which have caused so much anxiety to the West during the last few months.
In the past, I have watched with admiration the sublime attitude struck by the Prime Minister and I must say that inn elevating sublimity to a principle he has introduced a reassuring element into our political life. None the less, there are times when that sort of detachment, a detachment which can send a Legislature on holiday for three months, causes a great deal of anxiety for all those concerned with the normal democratic processes.
The Leader of the House said that everyone could be perfectly reassured because in the absence of Parliament a strong Executive would be in the saddle and would be able to invoke Standing Orders to reconvene the Legislature. The major reason why I am opposing the Motion is not that there does not exist the machinery for the Executive to recall the Legislature, but that during the coming months the Legislature will be so weakened that it will have no means of recalling the Executive, or calling the Executive to account, should that be necessary, as seems highly likely.
In the past, the Prime Minister has shown how he is able to convert every failure into the appearance of success. That stems from the new grand manner which springs in turn from a nostalgia for the nineteenth century. However, the nineteenth century could tolerate a House of Commons which went on holiday for three months because the rate of activity then was so incomparably slower than the rate of activity today. In a world where aircraft travel at 600 miles per hour, and Where electronic trawlers can tell what is going on 1,000 miles away, surely the methods of the nineteenth century are no longer apt for our present needs.
When I consider the projected, or the rumoured, appointments to be made by the Prime Minister, I cannot help feeling

that he has been reading too much Trollope recently. Indeed, he assumes the manner of the Duke of Omnium to the House of Commons. It is an attitude which assumes that he is capable himself of regulating great public affairs, in the manner very much of General de Gaulle, and I oppose the Motion because I do not want to see Parliament reduced to the incapacity which, in the last few years, has been forced upon some Parliaments of the West.
Recently, a silent revolution has been going on in the country. There has been a gradual transfer of constitutional power de facto from the Commons to another place. If this process continues, if the Executive accumulates so much power as to be able to do what it now intends to do, to send Parliament on a three months' vacation during which the salutary institution of Question Time, to which the Leader of the Liberal Party referred, will be in abeyance, today will be a bad day for democracy.
Like everyone else, I am very much in favour of holidays. Unlike the hon. Member for Yarmouth, it is neither my hope nor my intention to spend three months in my constituency, but I believe that it is possible for the Executive to seduce Parliament by imposing on it an unwelcome, and, sometimes, indeed, a welcome inertia. There is always a grave danger that the Executive, by liberating the Legislature from its responsibilities, will induce in the Legislature a willingness to acquiesce in high-handed action by the Executive, something which Should not be tolerated. I hope that today we will have the strength of will to resist that temptation.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: I agree with almost everything that has been said, including the famous paralysis speech made by the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell), but I should like to raise another matter of equal importance on which I feel we should have an answer before the House accepts the Motion. This question arises from the decision last April to cancel the Blue Streak intercontinental ballistic missile.
As a corollary to that decision, the Government's space research programme was held in abeyance. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Defence at the time said that the Government were


seeking expert advice on the matter through the Royal Society, and that a decision would be made as soon as possible. The importance of this decision being announced before the House adjourns is that the scientific teams assembled for this kind of work while Blue Streak was still in existence are now being offered attractive jobs in other parts of the world.
Many of them will have to review their positions before the House reassembles at the end of October. If the decision happens to be "No", and the Government decide not to go ahead with the Blue Streak programme, it will be impossible to regather these teams, or for them ever to take part in this type of work again. In other words, exploration in this specific sphere will have passed beyond the competence of this country, and we shall never be able to take part in it in the same way in future as we have in the past.
This decision must be made very soon. The reason why I suggest that it is of such profound importance is founded on a number of points, which I shall itemise briefly.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not sure how far this is connected with the Motion before the House. The decision can be taken whether or not the House is sitting.

Mr. Donnelly: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The relevance of the decision to the Motion before the House is that I want to know what the decision is before I decide whether to support the Motion. I was merely seeking to telescope my arguments and thus facilitate progress.
The importance of the decision is based on three points. First, the defence aspect. Space research is relevant to the future security of this country. In the past political influence and military power rested on control on land and on the seas. It is now likely that such influence will rest on the patrolling of outer space. That is the vital importance of this decision which should be made before the House adjourns.
My case rests not so much on that, but on the fact that I want an answer to a number of other questions. First, the telecommunications aspect of this proposition—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that we can go into the details of this matter in this debate. I notice that the hon. Member has the Adjournment debate on Friday. That will give him a further opportunity to raise these matters.

Mr. Donnelly: The last thing that I want to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is to go into the technical aspects of this question. If I did, there would not be time for any other discussion today. I would have to keep the House here all day.
How far have the Government gone in examining the telecommunications aspect? Is it true that this will completely revolutionise the whole of the international telephone system?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but I do not think that that is a detail we can debate on this Motion.

Mr. Donnelly: The last thing in the world that I wish to do is to dispute your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I agree with it entirely, but I am seeking an answer to these questions before the right hon. Gentleman asks us to accept the Motion.
The second question is: how far have the Government's researches gone in connection with the future of weather forecasting? Thirdly, what estimates have been made of the costs involved? What consideration have the Government given to it? The information that I have would make it easy for the Government to come to a decision today. That is why I am seeking to elicit an answer from the Home Secretary.
As I understand it, the question of cost is holding up the Government's decision. On the other hand, this is one of the important—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We cannot go into all this now. I hope that the hon. Member will be more successful with his Adjournment debate on Friday.

Mr. Donnelly: I was just drawing to a close, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
The decision which the Government have so far failed to make, and which I am suggesting they should announce before asking us to agree to the Motion, is one of the most important decisions in the history of British technology. It is as important as any of the decisions


which had to be taken in previous great voyages of exploration, and similar decisions faced the Government of the day in both Britain and Portugal 400 years ago, when they were asked to underwrite the voyages of Drake and Columbus. It is interesting to reflect on what would have been the course of history if there had been a Macmillan Government in office in either of those countries at that time.
Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has gone to the limit of what he can say on this subject.

Mr. Donnelly: I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, before we agree to the Motion, he will give the House an assurance that this decision will be taken in sufficient time to insure that we retain the technologists concerned. Secondly, whether he will give an interim assurance, if not a final decision, to reassure the personnel involved so that they will realise that there is a future for them in their jobs in this country.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I would make an appeal to the House. The speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly), full as it is of important questions, illustrates how our procedure ought or ought not to work. In answering a debate purely on a point of procedure I am not entitled to give the hon. Member highly technical answers, and if I do not do so I hope that he will not accuse me of discourtesy. The advantage which his speech gives me is that I can point out that a debate on this matter is already set down for Friday. I have already seen my right hon. Friend the Minister who is chiefly responsible. I did so in case this matter came up before Friday's debate, because I like to prepare my mind beforehand. My right hon. Friend and I agreed between us that the answers must be given on Friday. I cannot guarantee that every answer will be given, because I must reserve the position of my right hon. Fiend, but I can say that the points raised by the hon. Member will be conveyed by me to my right hon. Friend immediately after the debate.
Secondly, although there is to be a debate on Friday on the subject raised

by the hon. Member for Pembroke, that is not the case with other subjects. In that connection, however, the debate on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill gives hon. Members a chance to raise issues of precisely this sort. A short debate on disarmament has been arranged, but several hon. Members have given notice to the Ministers concerned that they wish to raise certain subjects afterwards, and it is easier to keep in order by raising those subjects in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill than by keeping on the very edge of order in this debate—which the hon. Member for Pembroke ingeniously managed to do. I would appeal to the House that we should now get on to the debate on disarmament, so that, after having disposed of Private Business, we can get on to subjects which are to be raised by individual Members.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) raised a question of constitutional propriety. He said he hoped that it would not be taken as a precedent that changes in the Government had necessarily to be announced when Parliament was sitting. It is clearly the prerogative of the head of the Government to announce changes whenever he likes. What happened on this occasion was that the resignation or retirement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer coincided with the period when Parliament was approaching the Recess. We thought, therefore, that it was only natural courtesy that an announcement should be made while Parliament was still sitting. In case there has been any misunderstanding I should like to make it clear that the announcement will be made from No. 10, Downing Street in the ordinary way, which is the constitutional way of proceeding.
I should like to take the precaution of saying that we have been in touch with the Opposition, through the usual channels, and have arranged for a debate to take place so that this matter may be considered by Parliament if Parliament, on hearing the announcement, still thinks it necessary to have such a debate.
I cannot usefully add much more to the discussion, and I sincerely hope that those hon. and right hon. Members who are so keen to discuss disarmament may now be permitted to do so.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. R. H. S. Crossman: If this debate has been prolonged, considerable blame rests upon the Home Secretary. Some of us have listened with great attention to the debate and to his reply, which I thought humorous and charming but entirely unworthy of the seriousness of the occasion. We have come here profoundly doubting whether we could disband for three months and we had from the right hon. Gentleman a characteristic light speech showing that he was taking this as a little Parliamentary excursion. He played a game with the rest of us. This was not the mood in which hon. Members on either side of the House attended today.
If some of us spoke afterwards, it was to impress upon him that the reply we got from him was unworthy of the speeches made by hon. Members on either side of the House. This is one of the few occasions When back benchers have the right to decide whether or not they should vote for the Motion. Whether or not we do so should depend upon the reply we get. But what reply did we have from the right hon. Gentleman to the vital question of Katanga, which hon. Members opposite raised? Although I profoundly disagree with hon. Members opposite about what the Government should do, I entirely agree about the importance of the issue.
We are being asked to adjourn without any notion whether or not the Government side with hon. Members opposite below the Gangway. The most urgent pressure has been put upon the Government by hon. Members opposite to decide, in a way which I think would be extremely dangerous, in the matter of the Katanga Government. Hon. Members opposite have urged the Government to plunge in and intervene in the matter. I respect the seriousness of hon. Members opposite in putting forward the proposal that the Government should intervene on behalf of the so-called Katanga Government, but the main anxiety of hon. Members on this side of the House is to get an express assurance that there will be no kind of intervention on the part of our Government. We want to be sure that we shall not plunge in and so disrupt the United Nations' effort.

Mr. Dudley Williams: On a point of order. This is not the point that my hon. Friend made.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are getting a little far from the terms of the Motion.

Mr. Crossman: With respect, we are debating the question whether or not we should vote for the Motion for the Adjournment. We are trying to make up our minds, and for that purpose we want an adequate reply from the Leader of the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is debating the Motion.

Mr. Crossman: We are debating the Motion and trying to make up our minds, in terms of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, whether we should force a Division or not. We have listened to two quite inadequate replies from him, and I am giving the reason why I regard them as inadequate. The reason is that there is now a deep division in this House between those hon. Members below the Gangway opposite who are urging the Government to intervene in some way on behalf of the Katanga Government and other hon. Members. I respect the sincerity with which those hon. Members put forward their proposal, but I want to put my point of view and I want an assurance, which I have not yet got.
I remember something which happened in the summer of 1956. I remember that we went into the Summer Recess with the Suez crisis just beginning and when we had a Government policy that was full of dubiety and ambivalence; the Government could not make up their mind. While the House was in recess pressure was brought upon the Government, largely at the Conservative Party Conference, which tipped us on to the edge of a world war and into the Suez fiasco. These decisive decisions on Suez, and the drift from what was the situation in July into the Suez fiasco, occurred while the House was in recess—

Mr. Fell: On a point of order. While Mr. Speaker was in the Chair the question of Suez was raised by an hon. Member opposite by way of an intervention in a speech that I was trying to make. The hon. Member was immediately ruled out of order. It seems to me that


the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), in his clever excursion, is raising a very similar point, and it would therefore seem to be completely oat of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On this Motion we cannot discuss the details of the Suez operation. I understand that the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) is putting forward the proposition that as that occurred during a long recess it was undesirable to have a long recess now.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, What I would say to, the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is that I, as a fellow back bencher, will seek to assist him in doing his duty if he will assist me in claiming the right of back benchers to demand a debate on this Motion.
I will now come back to the unpleasant topic of why we should not adjourn now. I say that we should not do so because w; remember what happened in a similar African crisis three years ago. During the Recess, partly as a result of party pressure from hon. Members who have been putting on pressure today, a disastrous decision was taken by a Tory Government. By the time that the House was brought back it was too late to prevent the disaster.
We must now ask ourselves seriously whether we can afford to allow this Government to face the Congo crisis and al; crisis in Central Africa—because those is a serious situation in Southern Rhodesia, as has been pointed out—while the House is in recess. Great pressures will be brought to bear upon the Government, both from Central Africa and from hon. Members opposite below the Gangway, to take another fateful decision, although we have had no kind of assurance from the right lion. Gentleman that he will promise not to listen to anything that is said from below the Gangway opposite but will stand by the United Nations and ensure that this vacuum in the Congo is filled, so giving the United Nations a chance to prevent a world war.
If we are thinking of parallels, I would point out that there is a parallel with the 1914–18 war where we had a situation—[An HON. MEMBER: "We

are anxious that the United Nations should not make war."] That is a most illuminating intervention, indicating how important it is for the Government to make up their mind between accepting the advice of their own back benchers or following the course of sanity. There is a great gulf between the Government teetering on the edge of insanity, on the one hand, and taking wise advice on this issue on the other.
I wish to return to one other point before the right hon. Gentleman makes a third and what, I hope, will at least be a respectable and respectful reply to the House. We in the City of Coventry have to face a crisis in the motor car industry. There has been a sensational drop in the exports of British motor cars so that for the first time exports were actually less than twelve months ago. This has resulted partly from direct Government action and the deliberate creation of a lack of confidence. Of course, there are other factors—for instance, the state of the market in North America—but the crisis in the industry has been induced by the decision of the present Chancellor to create this crisis of confidence.
We wish to know what is to happen over the next three months if figures show that during that time conditions are as bad as they are now. What will be done by the Government? Will action be taken? It is not only the motor car industry which is affected but our whole economy because of the important effect which that industry has upon the economy. The whole prosperity of our economy depends upon keeping the motor car industry going, and we have had no kind of answer from the Government. We do not even know who will be the next Chancellor, except that we have the threat that the Foreign Secretary may be moved there. We shall have a Chancellor appointed and we shall have no knowledge of his intentions with regard to the industry.
Perhaps the Leader of the House will once again try to give us some indication that he takes this question seriously. If he does not, it may be that we shall have to vote after all in order to discover the opinion of the House.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: I am sorry to intervene and to continue this debate but, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman), to a large extent the Leader of the House has brought it upon himself. First, the right hon. Member gave a rather inadequate reply to what had been already said. Not only was it an inadequate reply, but it seemed to conflict with some of the things said yesterday by his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I suggest that the reason for the opposition to the Motion from hon. Members opposite sitting below the Gangway arises from the reply of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs yesterday afternoon. We all welcome the granting of independence to the Congo, but it is quite clear that there is a feeling among hon. Members opposite that Congo independence should harmonise with the detachment of Katanga from the Congo Republic.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. We cannot go into that matter on the Question before the House.

Mr. Rankin: I have no intention of going deeply into the matter, but I felt that I should be allowed to express my own view and, I think, that of many hon. Members on this side of the House—and some on the opposite side—about why this action has been taken by hon. Members opposite below the Gangway.
That attitude definitely conflicts with what we were assured yesterday afternoon was the policy of the Government. I suggest that if the Leader of the House had made clear that he dissociated himself completely from the views expressed by the three hon. Members opposite who spoke, he would not have caused the discontent and worry which has been created among hon. Members on this side of the House by the fact that we are to go away for three long months and leave this situation in the hands of a Government obviously quite undecided as to how to deal with it.
I suggest that that demands a further intervention from the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman said a short while ago that hon. Members on both sides could raise these matters later.

Is he trying to slip away from everything—

Mr. R. A. Butler: Mr. R. A. Butler rose—

Mr. Rankin: Just let me finish, I will sit down in a moment.
If the Leader of the House will assure us that it is in order to raise these matters regarding the Congo and the bases and a whole lot of other things which I wish to refer to but which I will not deal with now—if we can do that later on tonight with the assurance of the Chair and the support of the Government, I shall give way immediately to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply, although I have not finished my speech.

Mr. Butler: I am not going to make a speech. I wish simply to interrupt the hon. Gentleman to say that it has been for long constitutionally right for Private Members to raise matters on the Appropriation Bill, but on this occasion, after the possible debate we may have on disarmament and the private Business which has to intervene for a short time, several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton), have given notice of matters which they wish to raise. Those matters will be in order and will be answered by the responsible Minister.
I am simply the Leader of the House and am not responsible for every aspect and every Department of Government. Under the rules of order, my chances to reply to the various points—this is the answer to the perfectly proper speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—are not as great as those of responsible Ministers. I am somewhat inhibited in my reply and, therefore, there are limits to the value of a debate like this, although I regard it as a serious debate.

Mr. Rankin: May I assume from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that if I now give notice that later today, or early tomorrow morning, I shall seek to direct the attention of the Government to the Motion on the Order Paper dealing with America's responsibility for world tension, the appropriate Minister will be in his place—the Foreign Secretary, the old or the new, I know not which—in order to deal with this?

[That this House would welcome an announcement from the Prime Minister that, following his letter to Mr. Krushchev, he proposes to write a letter to President Eisenhower informing him that a considerable number of people in Great Britain are exceedingly doubtful, since the incident of the U.2, whether the flights of United States aircraft over or near Russian territory are justified; that they believe that United States policy has also contributed to the increase in world tension; and would welcome some assurance that the United States of America is prepared to adopt a foreign policy more likely to lead to understanding with Russia, to bring China into the United Nations and end the fear that the nuclear arms race may lead to a third world war which could destroy civilisation.]

May I say how grateful I am personally that a terrible threat has been removed from Scotland, because if rumour be true, it has been suggested that the noble Gentleman who will shortly adorn the Government Front 13ench as Foreign Secretary might have been Secretary of State for Scotland. We have escaped that—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rankin: —and we should be grateful—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. That matter does not arise on the Question before the House.

Mr. Rankin: May I put the further point. With the wealth of talent which we were told is so great on the benches opposite. why should we be left with the present calamity? It may be that later on I shall develop this point.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in order.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We have had about 14 speeches in which very important matters have been raised and reasons given why the House should not adjourn for a period of three long months. Hon. Members have raised important matters of an international character, and I wish to raise a question which will affect hundreds of thousands of people in this country. I wish to ask the Leader of the House whether he can give an assurance that during the long

period of recess, if there be a need to recall the House under the Standing Order—I think it is No. 112, which the right hon. Gentleman said he would invoke if international conditions warranted—we can make use of it to recall Parliament on matters of national importance?
The question I want to draw to the attention of the Leader of the House is this. We are speaking this afternoon about going off for a long recess. Some hon. Gentlemen are talking about going to their country houses or to their seaside houses. Most of us are fortunate in that we have places to go to. Because of the action of this Government three years ago, a Measure was introduced in the House, which the Opposition opposed, which means that today and during the next few weeks many thousands of honest working class people will find themselves without a roof over their heads. Under the Rent Act, 1957,—this is not a small matter—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss this on this procedure Motion.

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I am explaining why I think the House should not adjourn for three months. I am explaining to the House, to the Leader of the House, and to you, Sir, that something is going to happen. It is not something which may happen. It is something which will happen, whereby people will be given notice to quit their houses unless they agree to a doubling or a trebling of their rents. This is on top of the fact that many of these people had their rents doubled and trebled—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to an Act of Parliament passed by the House. We cannot discuss that on this procedure Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I am referring to a Motion on the Order Paper saying that this House should adjourn for three months. I am referring to that Motion and saying that I am opposing it. I am explaining to you. Sir, and to the House why I think I should oppose the Motion, why I think my hon. Friends should oppose the Motion, and why I think that even the members of the Government should oppose the Motion.

Mr. John Hall: Would it not have been possible for the hon. Member to have raised this very important point on many occasions over the last few weeks if he had been present to do so?

Mr. Lewis: That is an interjection and interruption which—I say this with respect—is pretty low coming from the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), because my attendance and my record in the House is far better than most. It is certainly far better than that of many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are sitting opposite—or not sitting there. It ill becomes hon. Gentlemen now present, who are usually absent for weeks on end, to talk about my record of attendance in the House.
I will come back now to the subject which I was raising. This is a question which is arising now. It is not a question that arose three or four months ago. It will arise whilst the House is in recess. I was explaining that we, as Members of Parliament, will have no opportunity of raising in the House the fact that many of our constituents will be without a house or without accommodation.
There are several reasons why this ought to be raised now. There are several reasons why the Leader of the House ought to give us an assurance that, if this becomes a very important question, as I think it will, particularly in the London area and the large cities, he will agree that hon. Members on both sides should have the opportunity of approaching him and the Government to ask for the recall of Parliament.
The reason why I say that is this. Over the past few weeks there have been many inspired leaks as to who will or will not fill various Government offices. We are told that we shall be informed officially tomorrow. We shall await the information with interest. We have been told that one of the right hon. Gentlemen who might fill the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope the hon. Member will come back, to the Motion.

Mr. Lewis: No. I have tried to explain to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that if

we agree to the Motion and the House is adjourned I shall not have the opportunity next week of raising my complaint and opposing such a right hon. Gentleman occupying that position, because I know that he was the right hon. Gentleman who imposed the 7 per cent. Bank Rate in this country, which—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is grossly out of order.

Mr. Lewis: I have tried to explain to the House—I think that this is in order—that we should not adjourn. am trying to explain that the Motion should be opposed. I am trying to explain to the House that one of the reasons is that, if we adjourn now for three months, we shall have—not in all probability, but definitely—a new Chancellor of the Exchequer. I take for that not the paper rumours, but the Leader of the House, who said that we shall have the announcement tomorrow of a new Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order, order. We cannot discuss that now on this Motion.

Mr. Lewis: I agree that we cannot discuss it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. [Laughter.] But hon. Gentlemen who are laughing were not here when the Leader of the House mentioned this. I think, that I am entitled, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, to mention the subjects and matters which he himself mentioned and which you, with respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, allowed. If the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, as he most certainly did, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had for some some long time been wanting to relinquish office and tomorrow there would be an announcement of who would fill the office, I am entitled to pass comment on it.
My comment is this. I know that my borough council has been prevented from producing and building houses because of the excessive Bank Rate which the Government have from time to time imposed. Can we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that, if we agree to the Motion, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will not increase the Bank Rate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That does not arise on this procedure Motion.

Mr. Lewis: No, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is the difficulty that we are in. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh. We appreciate and understand that to them these questions are perhaps laughable.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: These questions ate not in order.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that I am putting to you another reason why I feel that we should oppose the Motion—I am speaking on the Motion—that the House should adjourn for three months. I am putting to you a reason why we, should not agree to the Motion standing in the Prime Minister's name. I am entitled, if hon. Gentlemen opposite would just be quiet for a moment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."] I am not afraid of speaking up. It is a pity the some hon. Gentlemen opposite do not do likewise. I am giving various raisons why I think the House should not adjourn.
We have heard hon. Gentlemen talking about the situation in Southern Rhodesia, the question with regard to the bases, the question with regard to the Congo, and various other matters. If they have been allowed, as they have, to give to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to ''the House reasons why in their view those are important issues which should prevent us agreeing to the Motion, I claim the right to give you and the House reasons—and a particular reason—why we should oppose the Motion.
I have mentioned a few reasons. I come back to what I originally attempted to explain, namely, that I have a fear the t, if and when we agree to the Motion anti adjourn, we shall have a position whereby the Government, who according to the Leader of the House will bring in a new Chancellor of the Exchequer, may well impose a restriction upon building authorities and thus again deprive my constituents of an opportunity of being rehoused.
I will conclude by asking—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] If hon. Gentlemen want me to go on, I will go on. I can explain several reasons why I think the House should not adjourn. I can do it even by explaining to the House that I think that there are many hon.

Members opposite who ought to fill the Foreign Secretary's job. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Do hon. Members want me to continue with that? I hear the cheers I am receiving. Certainly, they could not be any worse than the one in another place who is proposed. But, if I were to develop that, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you would say that I was out of order. Of course, I should be out of order, notwithstanding the fact that about fourteen speakers this afternoon have all mentioned it, including the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition.
In conclusion, I ask the Leader of the House to give an assurance. If hon. Members, particularly from London and the overcrowded cities of the country, find that their constituents are being given notice to quit and are being asked to pay exhorbitant rents which they cannot really afford, and if there is a large enough demand from hon. Members for a recall of Parliament to discuss that issue, will he give it at least as favourable consideration as he promised to his hon. Friends in the matters they mentioned this afternoon?
I honestly and sincerely believe that there is a very serious problem confronting my constituents and the constituents of many hon. Members. I do not feel happy about going away for three months knowing that it will not be possible to raise these questions in Parliament unless the Leader of the House gives the assurance for which I have asked.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I propose, with your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to address myself to the Motion rather more narrowly than have some hon. Members who preceded me. I shall not get involved in arguments with the ex-Suez group, now, I suppose, to be called the "Congo Group". I shall not get involved in arguments about Ministerial reconstruction, because any rearrangement of derelict machinery fit only for the scrap heap is of no particular interest to me. I wish the Leader of the House to clear up a mystery surrounding this Motion.
For the first time yesterday afternoon, at about half-past three, hon. Members were informed by the Patronage Secretary that the Motion was to be tabled


and was to be discussed today. In the circumstances, since that was the first opportunity the House had of learning the Government's intentions in the matter, I wonder how it came about that in the Daily Telegraph of Monday morning, 25th July, a commentator known as Peterborough, whom I do not know personally, actually announced that the Motion next day at the beginning of Business would be to fix the date of the Summer Recess.
This sort of thing has happened before. This particular matter was a domestic one affecting the House of Commons. How does it come about that Her Majesty's Government release to a particular journalist information of this kind which is denied to hon. Members? The particular journalist concerned must have known on the Sunday what the Patronage Secretary proposed to do, but no one in the House of Commons knew. It has happened before, and this is why I raise it now. It happened a few weeks ago that the Minister of Housing and Local Government was due to answer Questions on housing policy and the green belt and, on the very morning of the day on which he was due to answer Questions in the House, he gave an exclusive interview to the Daily Mail dealing with the very points he was supposed to explain to the House a little later.
I ask the Leader of the House to accept the proposition that it is a most undesirable practice on the part of Her Majesty's Government to release to favoured people outside information to which the House is entitled in the first instance. In my submission, it is not treating the House and the rights and privileges of the House with the courtesy and regard to which they are entitled It has happened twice in a very short time, and I urge the Leader of the House, who, I hope, has as much regard for our dignity as anyone, to accept that this kind of conduct really ought not to be tolerated.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I cannot accept the point put to me by the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton). As far as I know, this was not a deliberate conveyance of information to the journal in question. I agree that it is undesirable that news-

papers should be told before Parliament. I think this probably arose from an interchange on Thursday's business when there was some discussion about whether the Motion would be on one day or another. I think that that is how it arose. It certainly was not conveyed by the Government, and I give the assurance which the hon. Gentleman desires, that Parliament should be told first.
In answering the other points which have ben raised, I will tell the hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) that we are very anxious, as he is, about the position of exports, and, in particular, we have the interests of the motor industry at heart. To the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis), I say that the assurances that the Government would take the international or the national situation seriously cover the national situation in respect of hardship or difficulty just as much as they cover the international situation.
The only reservation that I make is to refer to the exact terms of the Standing Order, which leave the discretion with the Government but leave the representations to hon. Mmbers and to representatives of public opinion. I hope that it will be seen, therefore, that we are perfectly serious about our intention to let Parliament assist the duties of the Government if the situation warrants it or should make it necessary. I hope that that serious assurance will reassure hon. Members who have put points to me.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Question is, "That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th October."
As many as are of that opinion say "Aye". To the contrary, "No". I think the "Ayes" have it.

Mr. A. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think I am right in saying that I heard more than two voices shout "No" when you put the Question on the Sittings of the House Motion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Then I will put the Question again.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 217, Noes 26.

Division No. 148.]
AYES
[5.48 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, Rt. Hon. William (Woodside)
Neave, Airey


Aitken, W. T.
Green, Alan
Nicholls, Harmar


Allason, James
Gresham Cooke, R.
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Sir Robert
Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. D.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wyoombe)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Barlow, Sir John
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Barter, John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Batsford, Brian
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Page, Graham


Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Berkeley, Humphry
Hay, John
Peel, John


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Bingham, R, M.
Hendry, Forbes
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Pilkington, Capt. Richard


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Pitman, I. J.


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Bossom, Clive
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pott, Percivall


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hocking, Philip N.
Powell, J. Enoch


Box, Donald
Holland, Philip
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hollingworth, John
Profumo, Rt. Hon, John


Braine, Bernard
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Brooman-White, R.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Ramsden, James


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Rawlinson, Peter


Bullard, Denys
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Renton, David


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Roots, William


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Iremonger, T. L.
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Jackson, John
Russell, Ronald


Cary, Sir Robert
James, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Sharples, Richard


Chataway, Christopher
Jennings, J. C.
Shaw, M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Smithers, Peter


Cole, Norman
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Speir, Rupert


Cooper, A. E.
Kirk, Peter
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lambton, Viscount
Storey, Sir Samuel


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Cordle, John
Leavey, J. A.
Talbot, John E.


Corfield, F. V.
Leburn, Gilmour
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Teeling, William


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Lindsay, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Critchley, Julian
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Crowder, F. P.
Litchfield, Capt. John
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Cunningham, Knox
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Curran, Charles
Longbottom, Charles
Turton, Rt Hon. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Longden, Gilbert
van Straubenzee, W. R.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Loveys, Walter H.
Vane, W. M. F.


de Ferranti, Basil
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Vaughan-Morgan. Sir John


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vickers, Miss Joan


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
McLaren, Martin
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
McMaster, Stanley R.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Duncan, Sir James
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Wall, Patrick


Duthie, Sir William
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Rt. Hon. George (Worcester)


Eden, John
Maginnis, John E.
Watts, James


Elliott, R. W.
Maitland, Sir John
Webster, David


Emery, Peter
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Whitelaw, William


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Marshall, Douglas
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Farr, John
Marten, Neil
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Foster, John
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Wise, A. R.


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Gammane, Lady
Mawby, Ray
Woodhouse, C. M.


Gardner, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C
Woodnutt, Mark


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mills, Stratum
Woollam, John


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Worsley, Marcus


Goodhart, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Goodhew, Victor
Morgan, William



Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Gibson-Watt and Mr. Noble.







NOES


Baird John
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Skeffington, Arthur


Beaney, Alan
Holman, Percy
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Kelley, Richard
Swingler, Stephen


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Crossman, R. H. S.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Warbey, William


Edelman, Maurice
Marsh, Richard



Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Millan, Bruce
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimond, J.
Pavitt, Laurence
Mr. A. Lewis and Mr. Wade.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Rankin, John

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising on Friday, do adjourn till Tuesday, 25th October.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Busi-

ness), any Private Business set down for Consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — DISARMAMENT

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I want to start by making a protest against the arrangements made for this debate on disarmament. We were to discuss today the work of the Committee of Ten Nations, which sat for ten weeks in Geneva, and what the Government will do about it in the General Assembly of the United Nations in a few weeks' time. As so many hon. Members have said this afternoon, we are going away for three months. In those months, the Government delegation in New York must make declarations about disarmament of the utmost importance in the General Assembly.
I think it lamentable that this House has had no proper chance to debate what happened in the Committee of Ten, and about what the Government are now to do. During the General Election, and ever since, the Government have made resounding declarations about disarmament. if they were sincere in what they said they would have given us a full day of Government time in which they could explain what happened, and what they mean to do.
In the minutes that remain before the Private Bill, it is quite impossible for my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to put before the House what we had wished to say. Nevertheless, as I desire to hear the Minister of State, I will explain the major part of the general case I hoped to make. I had proposed to argue that for over sixty years the arms race has been the most important single factor in determining the conduct of international affairs by the leading Governments of the world.
Ever since 1898, when Mr. Khrushohev's predecessor, the Czar of Russia, issued his famous rescript, the words of which would apply today, without the

change of a comma, to the arms race in which we are now engaged, Governments have shaped their policy with a view to what they have been pleased to call national defence. In the years since the First World War there have been three real chances, as I think, to bring the arms race, to an end: in 1925, in 1932, and in 1955. On each occasion, a Government of this country played a part that I regret.
The arms race has now reached the apocalyptic culmination that Czar Nicholas foretold. There came a fourth chance in September last, when the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Khrushchev proposed in the General Assembly their respective plans for general and complete disarmament. Let me recall the Foreign Secretary's actual words. He presented to the United Nations General Assembly what he called a plan by which the nations
…could move forward by balanced stages towards the abolition of all nuclear weapons, and all the weapons of mass destruction, and towards the reduction of other weapons and armed forces to levels which rule out the possibility of aggressive war.
I ask the House to note the words,
…levels which rule out the possibility of aggressive war.
I have never pretended to admire the actual plan by which the Foreign Secretary suggested we might reach that ultimate objective. I regretted the plan for a Committee of Ten Nations to meet outside the framework of the United Nations, divided into two groups of five, each group consisting of Governments bound by rigid and rival military alliances, while four-fifths of mankind had no voice at all.
Two features I particularly feared. I was afraid that each group of five would act on the pernicious policy of "My all, right or wrong". I thought that that might lead to deadlock which the presence of independent members could have helped to break. I think that I could show from the proceedings in that Committee that those fears were far from groundless. But, of course, the U.N. Assembly endorsed the proposal for the Committee of Ten. Echoing the Camp David communiqué, it adopted a Resolution which declared that
…the question of general and complete disarmament was the most important one facing the world today.


It expressed the hope—in reality, it was an instruction to the Committee
That measures leading towards the goal of general and complete disarmament under effective international control will be worked out in detail and agreed upon in the shortest possible time.
That meant, as the Foreign Secretary meant when he proposed the reductions to
…levels which rule out the possibility of aggressive war
that the search for partial measures of disarmament, on which so many weary years had been fruitlessly expended, no longer held real hope. Only drastic measures could stop the race to what the Foreign Secretary called "mutual suicide".
What happened when the Committee of Ten finally gathered in Geneva on 15th March? The Western Governments presented a paper that was a rude shock to everybody's hopes. We had expected that it would contain something more concrete; more definite proposals for speedy and drastic armament reductions than had the Foreign Secretary's plan of last September. Indeed, on 10th February, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had encouraged us in this House to expect that that would happen.
When this Western paper finally appeared, however, it contained, in spite of all the efforts of the Minister of State and of M. Moch, no real armament reduction in the first stage at all. Force levels at the second stage were to be, for Russia and the United States, 2·1 million men. All the real measures to deal with the nuclear, chemical and biological menaces, with the missiles, the bombers and the rest, were relegated to a final stage which, even to a Western reader, seemed to be indefinitely remote. After six weeks of the Committee's labours, the Rumanian delegate said that
the Western Powers consider general and complete disarmament not as a concrete and practical task, but as a distant ideal to which humanity should continue to aspire, without knowing when and how it will be achieved.
As long as the Western delegates continued to defend this lamentable paper of 15th March, I think the Rumanian's words were justified.
Certainly their Press conferences led journalists to believe that the Western delegates had altogether abandoned the

Foreign Secretary's objective of September last. On 1st April The Times special correspondent reported from Geneva that the Western delegates were still hoping that
the moment may come when Russia might accept partial measures.
On 6th April he said:
The hope has all along been that Zorin, having trumpeted general and complete disarmament around the world, would turn about and offer partial disarmament measures.
I believe that when the journalists wrote stuff like that—and they wrote reams of it—they misunderstood the Minister of State, M. Moch and General Burns. I believe that those delegates were gravely embarrassed in the Committee of Ten by their attempts to defend the indefensible paper of 15th March. I think that they made the grave mistake of acting far too long on the principle "My ally right or wrong."
Let me, in all friendship for the United States, call a spade a spade. Two weeks ago the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) asked the Prime Minister to consider putting this point to the President of the United States—
that one of the greatest anxieties which people in this country have is lest the military machine should become the dictator of political policy. In the interests of a continuing amicable and successful alliance in N.A.T.O., will he ask the President to do all that he can to make it abundantly clear that the military instrument is within the control of the politician?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 1174.]
The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely was speaking about the flight of the RB47. But I believe that Mr. Khrushchev drew exactly the same conclusion as the hon. Member from the episode of the U2—that the Pentagon was in full charge of American foreign policy, including the policy of disarmament as well.
When I first read the Western paper of 15th March I remembered Mr. Nutting saying in his little book that the student of the disarmament discussions in which he took part must always bear in mind,
as the negotiators for their part were never allowed to forget, that behind each disarmament delegation there hovers that gaunt, grey giant in the counsels of men and nations—the Ministry of Defence.


When I first read the Western paper of 15th March I remembered what Mr. Nutting said, and I felt certain that the Pentagon had spoken the last and the decisive word in its preparation. I have toe highest regard for the patriotism and tae intellectual ability of the Pentagon and for the great services it has rendered to us all, but I cannot believe that it has the right people to decide Western policy on disarmament. I think they were in charge for far too long. They were in charge when Mr. Eaton made his opening speech on 15th March.
Mr. Eaton poured cold water on all flat the previous orators, including M. Moch, had said. He warned them against
some grand, but hollow design; some ambitious but unenforceable scheme; some unrealistically timed programme of disarmament.
I think the Pentagon was still in charge when, on 8th June, Mr. Eaton, speaking of Mr. Khrushchev's plan of 2nd June, called it
propaganda slogans
and
glittering pictures of distant goals.
No one will dispute that Mr. Khrushchev's plan of 2nd June was a remarkable piece of work. It was, indeed, the true turning point of the Committee of Ten.
Let me give a brief outline of what occurred. The Minister of State will correct me if I am wrong. Mr. Khrushchev's plan contained three essential parts: first, M. Moch's proposal that the means of delivering nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction should be abolished at the first stage of a disarmament treaty; Mr. Khrushchev added the proposal that foreign bases should be liquidated and foreign troops withdrawn.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby Gore): Perhaps I may correct the right hon. Gentleman straight away. I should like to quote from a speech by M. Moth in which he said at the final session:
Among the questions put to me by Mr. Zorin on Friday was one, the principle of which he repeated today, namely that the Soviet Government has adopted the French thesis concerning vehicles for nuclear weapons. That is completely incorrect and I wish this denial to appear in the record.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am well aware that M. Moch said that. The Minister of State was kind enough to send me the minutes of that meeting, although we have not had the rest of the minutes for June. if I may say so to the Minister of State, as I would say to M. Moch, Mr. Khrushchev did accept this proposal that in the early stages of a disarmament treaty the means of delivery should be abolished. If the Minister of State would like me to do so, I will quote M. Moch's actual words as he uttered them on 15th March. Mr. Khrushchev did not allow as long a time programme as perhaps M. Moch would have proposed, but M. Moch made no suggestions. He talked about the first stage. Mr. Khrushchev added to that proposal for the abolition of the means of delivery another proposal that foreign bases should be liquidated and foreign troops withdrawn.
The second part of the Khrushchev plan of 2nd June was the proposal that American and Russian manpower ceilings should be fixed at 2·1 million in the first stage and 1·7 million in the second stage. Third, there was elaborate provision for inspection and control, which I think would go very far towards ensuring that a disarmament treaty would be effectively observed. There was much more of which I could speak if I had time.
A week after this plan had been presented, Mr. Eaton sought to show that the abolition of the means of delivery—missiles, aircraft, submarines and the rest—together with the liquidation of foreign bases and the withdrawal of foreign troops, would leave Western Europe at the mercy of the much superior conventional forces of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Zorin replied in a speech of great power, of which the Soviet News has obligingly provided us with the text. He showed that the abolition of the means of delivery would render impossible the kind of devastating sudden aggression which threatens everyone today. Then he said:
You are afraid of the Soviet conventional forces? But we proposed in March a reduction to 1·7 million at the first stage, while you proposed 2·1 million at the second. If we say now 1·7 at the second, that is a concession which we made to you. If you want quicker and larger reductions, make us your proposals, and we will negotiate.


Everyone knows that Mr. Khrushchev has said very often—he said it to me eighteen months ago—that he would gladly go to 1 million at the first stage if America would do the same. Everyone knows that it was the Pentagon which insisted before 15th March that 2·1 million as the figure for the second stage was the lowest they could have, because they said they could not man their bases overseas with less.
When Mr. Zorin made this speech, Mr. Eaton and his colleagues of the West were left without an answer. It was that interchange that led the other Western delegates to do what I believe they should have done many weeks before. They stopped acting in the Committee of Ten on the principle, "My ally right or wrong". They told Mr. Eaton that they could no longer defend an indefensible position. They sent him back to Washington to get new instructions from his Government. The Pentagon still resisted. I was in Washington at the time and I know something of what occurred. In the end, Mr. Eaton came back with the new proposal of 27th June. This new proposal was, as everyone agrees, a great advance on the document put forward in March. It accepted, in terms that left no doubt, the full objective of real disarmament embodied in the United Nations Assembly Resolution.
It accepted the necessity for a timetable which previously the Western delegates had contested. It accepted M. Moch's proposal for the abolition of the means of delivery, although with longer delays than Mr. Khrushchev had proposed. It showed agreement on many of the control and other measures which Mr. Khrushchev had put forward. If we had had that document on 15th March the whole history of the Committee might have been very different indeed.
I regret, as hon. Members on both sides of the House regret, that the Communist delegations chose to leave the Committee of Ten just when they knew that this fresh proposal would be made. I am quite sure that Mr. Khrushchev will try again. His whole policy will be in ruins unless he does. I urge on the Government—and this is why I wanted to have this debate today—that what they do in the United Nations Assembly in a few weeks' time may be

of tremendous importance. Disarmament will be—with Africa—by far the most important issue to be discussed. It would be a disaster if the debate became a wrangle about errors of the past, or the merits of the rival plans.
Perhaps the Soviet delegates will try to make it that. Perhaps, as often in the past, and certainly at Geneva, they will be in a more sober and constructive mood. But, whatever they may do, I hope that our delegation will not lose the chance which the Assembly offers of giving a new impulsion to the disarmament work, but will state clearly and boldly a British view about how agreement should be reached.
I believe that there are two essential points on which we should go further than the American paper of 27th June. We should take up the Russians on what I call their acceptance of M. Moch's plan and press for the earliest possible abolition of the means of delivery by which nuclear, chemical and biological weapons can be used. M. Moch said in March, I recall his words, that we must do it "while there is still time." With the vast and complex changes in weapon systems now going on, the danger does not lie in going too fast; it lies in going too slow.
Why do not the Government work out a detailed plan to show that it could be done under effective international control, in two years, or at the most in three? Consider what it is that Russia offers: The abolition of all their missiles—deadly weapons of aggression in which, by general consent, they have a lead; the abolition of all their bombing aircraft, which are by no means to be despised; the abolition of their submarines, of which they have 500 or more. Can anyone doubt that if this were done it would mean more for the military security of Britain and of Europe than buying Skybolt, or arranging to give Polaris to the Germans in six years' time? In six years' time it may be too late.
The Russians, in return, ask that our foreign bases should be liquidated and foreign troops withdrawn. If missiles and bombers and submarines were abolished many of the 250 N.A.T.O. bases would automatically disappear—their purpose would have gone. Surely we can negotiate a bargain with the


Soviet that our remaining bases—and of course their bases, too—would be dealt with, as conventional forces and armaments are reduced. This is the second point on which I hope that our delegation will speak out in the Assembly.
Why cannot it urge that we should all go back to the manpower ceilings which the West urged, and the Russians accepted, in 1955, of 1 million or at most 1·5 million men, at the first stage, and further drastic reductions at the second and third? Again, the military argument is extremely strong. What could so much improve the defence position of Western Europe as a reduction of Russian forces to 1 million men? The more we distrust the Russians, and the more we think them capable of a nuclear Pearl Harbour, or a surprise land attack, the stronger the case for taking from them the missiles, bombers, submarines and tank divisions without which no such attack could ever be made.
Let us take up Mr. Khrushchev on his offers in the Assembly; and we shall very soon discover if he means to cheat, and the world will judge between him and us. I say again to the Government: in these disarmament discussions, which affect the safety and the vital interests of every nation in the world, let them definitely abandon the principle, "My ally right or wrong". We might never have had Mr. Khrushchev's second plan or the American plan of 27th June, if M. Moch had not spoken out for France and demanded that nuclear weapons and the means of delivery should be abolished. If the British delegation were to act as I have suggested, I believe that the whole Commonwealth, indeed the vast majority of the Assembly, would rally to its support. Here is a chance for the Prime Minister to make another speech about "the wind of change". The arms race is no less urgent, no less dangerous, and no less vitally important to the British people than apartheid. If we lose this present opportunity, this fourth chance to get disarmament, it may be the last.
In a hospital in New York City the great American physicist, Leo Szilard, lies dying of cancer. It was Szilard who, in 1939, persuaded Einstein to propose to Roosevelt that the Western democracies should make a nuclear bomb. It was Szilard, who, when Roosevelt said

"Yes", borrowed 2,000 dollars to buy radium, and began the experiments from which the bomb was born. Szilard, on his deathbed, is preaching that only total disarmament can save mankind.
Robert Oppenheimer was the leader of Szilard's team. He was the true maker of the atomic bomb. A month ago, speaking in Berlin, Mr. Oppenheimer said that in this decade
The deadliness, the destructive power of the atomic stockpiles has increased far more than a hundredfold. Today, the new means of delivery and use have made of the command and control of these weapons systems a nightmare fully known only to those responsible. They have added chance to anger as another cause of disaster. If another war occurs none of us can count on having enough living to bury our dead.
If our Governments will not act now on warnings such as these, I hope that they will abandon all pretences and will never use the word "disarmament" again.

6.31 p.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby Gore): The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) started by saying that it was lamentable that we have such a short time to discuss so important a subject and, naturally, we agree with him. But we think that some of his criticisms might have been directed at certain Members on his back benches. because they have not left us sufficient time to discuss this extremely important subject in the detail which it deserves.
The debate takes place in a mood of great disappointment because, as the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech, only a few months ago—even four months ago—the prospects for disarmament certainly looked better than perhaps at any time since the war. It was in that mood that we met in Geneva on 15th March.
I wish to make a few remarks about the two plans which were discussed during the first stage of the conference, because I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman drew an altogether fair picture of the proposals which have been put forward on the Western side. I begin, however, by making a reference to the proposals put forward by the Soviet Union—proposals which had been presented to the United Nations Assembly last September. The other


Eastern European delegations told us that they had had a meeting with the Soviet Government before coming to Geneva in order to discuss the Soviet plan, but it was very noticeable that when it was presented to us on 16th March every comma and every word was the same as in the plan put forward in the previous September.
But it had certain features which we believed were an improvement. We had already said so. I had said so at the Assembly last year. It did not demand the total abolition of nuclear weapons in the first stage and, therefore, it did not require the dismantling of the Western deterrent at that stage. It put the abolition of nuclear weapons in the last stage of the plan. This was Mr. Khrushchev's proposal from last September. It also proposed that the liquidation of bases on foreign territory should not take place until the end of the second stage, by which time it was suggested that all conventional forces would have been disbanded. Very naturally, if all conventional forces had been disbanded, there would no longer be any need for bases.
These were two satisfactory features of the Khrushchev proposals of September, 1959, but the plan had certain drawbacks. Very little was said about control, although I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the latest Soviet proposals are an improvement in that respect. But the original plan which we had presented to us in March had very little about control.
As hon. Members know, it contained no provision for any nuclear disarmament in either the first or the second stage. It contained no provision whatever for building up international machinery for keeping the peace once the purely national armaments began to be reduced. Finally, the timetable suggested was quite unrealistic. Indeed, to some extent it was fraudulent, because the proposal was that this complete and general disarmament would be brought about in four years. But, as our discussions in Geneva very soon revealed, this actual process of disarmament would not even begin—not one single measure of disarmament would be started—until there had been drawn up a treaty for general and complete disarmament, there had been a world con-

ference of all States, every State in the world, and every State in the world had signed the treaty. Thus, no disarmament would have taken place for a great many years. Whether it would have been possible to complete the process in four years is a different matter, but I think that even that timetable was highly unlikely.
The Western plan, which was the subject of our discussions during the first stage of the Conference, was, we believe very much more realistic. It is true that in the first stage of the plan there was very little disarmament, because the Soviet Union on many occasions had indicated that they would not be prepared for very extensive control in the first phase. It seemed to us to be very necessary to try to build up, first of all, a greater confidence between the two sides, and when this had been done and when certain technical studies had taken place, it would then be possible to move on to very much more substantial measures of disarmament.
We therefore addressed our minds very much more in the first stage to those measures which could be quickly implemented—measures which could even be implemented simply by the ten Powers meeting in Geneva. There was provision, of course, that further and more substantial measures would be introduced as soon as other countries acceded to any disarmament agreement. In the second stage we recognised the need for a world disarmament conference at which all the militarily significant countries in the world would be able to put their points of view. At that stage, and when all countries were to come in and join the disarmament process, very much more substantial measures of disarmament would be possible.
Our plan, moreover, was better balanced in that it contained measures for nuclear disarmament and conventional disarmament at each stage. It also contained provisions for building up the peace-keeping machinery. I think that too often when people talk about the need to build up peace-keeping machinery they tend to speak too much in terms of building up a force to keep the peace. But it is not just a question of having forces at the disposal of the international community. There is also a necessity to build up the machinery


of conciliation and machinery for mediation between countries having a dispute, building up the power of the International Court and so on. It is only as a final resort that it is necessary that the international community should also have forces at its disposal in circumstances in which the mediation and the conciliation machinery have broken down.
During the first stage, when these two plans confronted each other, there was some clarification of the positions of both sides, but, I agree, very little progress. I do not think that that is altogether surprising in view of the very close proximity of the Summit. I gained the very definite impression that in those earlier days the Soviet delegation were anxious to see what would come out of the Summit before they were prepared to discuss disarmament in detail—that is, to discuss specific disarmament measures in detail. They were prepared to take part in a general debate on general disarmament but even on their own measures they were not prepared to enter into a detailed debate.
For instance, their proposal was that conventional forces should be reduced to 1·7 million in the first stage. When it was suggested that we should discuss in some detail the measures of verification which would be allowed to ensure that the countries concerned had reduced these forces to 1·7 million, they entirely declined to debate that issue. As I say, the evidence was that they were waiting to see how things might work out at the Summit.
The second phase took place after the collapse of the Summit and, therefore, quite naturally, in the second part of the Conference the Soviet tactics and strategy were radically different from what they had been earlier. Here I would doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that, if only the plan of 27th June put forward by the United States had been presented earlier, the course of the whole disarmament conference might have been very different. I do not think it would have made much difference what plan we had started with. Once the Summit meeting had collapsed, and once Mr. Khrushchev had decided that he did not wish to have further negotiation with the present American Administration, I think that it was extremely unlikely, whatever plan

was on the table, after 7th June that we would have made any progress on disarmament this year.
When the second stage started there was, rather naturally, after the collapse of the Summit, which I am not going into now, a very marked difference in tone. The new Soviet proposals had been presented to the world on 2nd June at a Press conference by Mr. Khrushchev in which he devoted precisely five minutes to the proposals and one-and-a-half hours to vilification of the United States and the President of the United States. This was not an encouraging start. The proposals were actually tabled at the meeting on 7th June and less than three weeks later the Soviet Union and its allies walked out of the meetings.
The new Soviet proposals of 2nd June had been quite skilfully drafted. It is true that they had taken account of certain Western ideas, but I believe that in certain cases they had placed them in the wrong order. However, the improved features of their plan certainly showed that the previous discussions had not been entirely barren. For instance, they now accept that there should be some control over missile bases. They accept the prohibition of placing in space orbiting vehicles fitted with weapons of mass destruction. They have placed a figure of 1·7 million on conventional forces in the second stage of their plan and they do not, in fact, in the plan as tabled, propose any force reductions in the first stage. They certainly contain very much more detail on control, although in some respects this is still inadequate, as was very clearly shown in some of the cross-examination which Mr. Zorin had to stand up to from M. Moch.
But these were improvements. They had also agreed at long last to a study of the question of the cut-off in the manufacture of fissile material for weapon purposes, although they would themselves put off the implementation of that measure until the second stage. Most important of all, they seemed to have abandoned their unrealistic and strict timetable. They made provision in their latest plan for a report to be made to the Security Council at the end of each stage and before the next stage was started. We will discover later that this kind of proposal is mirrored in the latest United States plan, presented on 27th June.
What were the bad features of the Soviet Union's latest proposals? They contained this idea of the total elimination of all the means of delivery as the first measure in the first stage, and they pretended quite erroneously, that this represented the French views. It was taking up a French idea, I agree. It is an idea which has occurred, I think, to many of us who have studied the whole question of disarmament. It arises simply from the fact that we all now know that we cannot discover existing stocks of nuclear weapons. They are now with us in such large quantities that there is no scientific method known to man of being able to verify their existence. Therefore, if we are to deal with the problem of nuclear disarmament, we must accept the fact that these stocks cannot be found and, thus, a new approach is needed. The best approach that any of us has been able to think of is by proceeding to try to eliminate the means of delivery of these weapons of mass destruction. That is quite understood, and I made speeches in support of M. Moch's proposals along these lines.
The French proposals, however, are rather more sophisticated than perhaps the right hon. Gentleman suggested. They believe that, in the first stage, it will be necessary to get some kind of control over the means of delivery and over the bases from which these means of delivery can be launched. Then they go on to some reduction in the means of delivery, finishing with the total elimination of the means of delivery. In that kind of sequence, I think that we could all accept this as a sensible way to approach the problem of eliminating nuclear weapons.
The second bad feature of the latest Soviet proposals was their insistence on the total liquidation of all foreign bases in the first stage. These two measures represented an almost precise reversal of the proposals put forward by Mr. Khrushchev as recently as September, 1959. There, the elimination of nuclear weapons and the abolition of foreign bases were put at the very end of the process. On 7th June we had presented to us proposals which would eliminate them both as the first two measures of the first stage. This was a radically different plan and, in some ways, went

back on the proposals of Mr. Khrushchev of as recently as last year.
The Soviet Union then demanded an immediate Western reaction to these latest proposals. They clearly hoped, I think, that we would make speeches so antagonistic to the proposals that they would be able to say, "Quite clearly, the West is not interested in disarmament and, therefore, we will break off the conference". But we did not do that. We studied the proposals in great detail. I returned to London, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Mr. Eaton, the leader of the United States delegation, decided after quite a short space of time, to return to the United States and have discussions in Washington. We had all agreed that the right way to deal with the latest Soviet proposals was to study them carefully, take into account what the Soviet Union and its allies said during the earlier part of the Conference, and put in some counter-proposals which would go some way to meet Soviet criticisms of the Western plan.
That was decided upon. Mr. Eaton returned to Geneva less than three weeks after the recommencement of the conference. He told Mr. Zorin that he had proposals to make. Mr. Dillon had announced three days before that the United States delegate was returning to Geneva with new proposals to put before the conference. It was on the very day that he returned that the Soviet Union and its allies walked out of the conference.
I believe that this action was very badly timed tactically because it put them in a rather absurd position. It was a really ludicrous performance. Strategically, I think that it was necessary for the Soviet Union in view of the kind of speeches Mr. Khrushchev had been making about the position of the United States and particularly about President Eisenhower. It would have been very difficult for them to have seen the rôles reversed—that a United States proposal was on the table and we were waiting for the Soviet Union's reaction to it. It would have been very difficult under those conditions for them to have walked out of Geneva.
In order to avoid this, apparently, they decided to wind up the conference in this highly discreditable way. The only action we could take was to say that the conference was not at an end. I moved into


the chair and I called upon the United States delegate, who then presented the latest United States plan. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he considers this a substantial improvement upon earlier Western plans.
I should like to make some comments on the latest United States plan, because I do not think that it has had sufficient attention. It contains substantial measures of disarmament in the first stage. It provides for control, not only over missile launching sites, but also over naval and air bases. This was to meet what seemed to me a valid criticism by the Soviet Union that it was all very well to ask for control over missile launching sites but that this would be more likely to inhibit the Soviet Union than the United States and its allies and that control simply over missile sites without control over air and naval bases was a onesided proposition. In the latest United States proposal, there is now to be control over both naval and air bases as well as over missile launching sites.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: The right hon. Gentleman said that he always considered that to be a valid point by Russia. Can he give any reference to any of the discussions before the Summit when he himself, on behalf of the United Kingdom, stated openly that he thought that this Soviet point was valid?

Hr. Ormsby Gore: I thought that it was much more useful to make the point to the United States, who then incorporated it in their next plan. This was one of the new features.
Another new feature was that the United States Government accepted the figure of 1·7 million for conventional forces in the second stage. Now, the two plans are identical on this matter. Both plans, the Soviet and the United States plans, contain provision for reductions to 1·7 million in the second stage. The latest proposals also contain measures for the progressive elimination of the means of delivery. They take up the kind of language used in the Soviet plan to arrange for the transition between one stage of the disarmament process and the next.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that there is now little difference between the final goals set out in the two plans. The

Soviet Union has accepted that when all national armed forces have been reduced to levels required for internal security purposes only, there should also be contingents available to the international community for the enforcement of peace in the world. In this respect, the Soviet Union has come to much the same position as that contained in the Western plan.
I believe that this latest plan by the United States Government constitutes a real effort to meet some of the Soviet criticisms. If we could have continued with our discussions, I think that the Committee would have been able to report definite progress to the Disarmament Commission and to the General Assembly. This was all brought to nought, however, by the walk-out of the Soviet delegation and their allies. Clearly, this is a situation which should be examined as early as possible by the United Nations, who have a primary responsibility in this direction.
The Disarmament Commission is to meet early in August. The United Kingdom Government for their part would have been very happy had it met even earlier. Meanwhile, in the surrounding gloom, I should mention at least one gleam of light. That is, that the Conference for the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapon Tests is still in being and we still believe that it is possible for it to reach an agreement this year, even later this summer. The number of outstanding issues is comparatively small.
I believe that progress would be possible if we could overcome the difficulty about the co-ordinated research programme. Here again, the United States have made a considerable move by saying that they will allow the inspection of any nuclear devices which are to be used in this research programme. This was quite a problem for the United States, because it requires Congressional approval before it can be put into effect. The United States have made that offer to the Soviet Union. If there is agreement on that and on one or two other major outstanding points, there is no reason why we should not sign an agreement this year. It is certainly the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do everything possible to achieve this.
Before I come to the end of my remarks, I should like to return to the question of general disarmament. Everyone in this House would agree that the prospects of serious negotiation this year are extremely slender. We will have debates at the United Nations, but they will not amount to detailed negotiation. When they are resumed, however, we should bear in mind certain basic considerations. The first is that where there is a complete lack of trust and confidence in the world, effective control over the disarmament process must be the touchstone.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Tell America that.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Tell everybody.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: It may well be that we now live under a balance of terror, and that is a disagreeable sensation. It may well be, however, that this is less dangerous than an imbalance in armed forces on both sides such as we saw in the years before 1939. We must remember that it is war itself that is the enemy and not a particular kind of war.
A ban on nuclear weapons because of their very horror, has a kind of superficial attraction, but I believe that this kind of approach to disarmament is an extremely dangerous illusion. It is not just that conventional war fought with modern weapons would be incredibly destructive, as the last war was. In future, a global war cannot be confined to conventional weapons, even if in peace time an agreement had been signed for the abolition of nuclear weapons. All the best scientists in the world, including the Soviet scientists, have agreed that it would be possible for an industrial nation which knows the process to be back in production with nuclear weapons within one year of the outbreak of war. This means that we must stop any war breaking out, not simply a nuclear war.
That consideration points unmistakably to a double task which confronts us. It is not only to reduce the armaments and forces in the world under

international control in such a way as to minimise the capacity of countries to commit aggression. It also means, at the same time, building up international institutions for the peaceful settlement of disputes and putting at the disposal of the international community the force that is necessary to repulse an aggression should one take place, and to see that the laws and decisions of the international institutions are carried out.
That is the supreme task which now faces us. I know that there are people who are sceptical of achieving success. They point to the history of disarmament discussions and they say that there has been no success in the past. I do not take so pessimistic a view, because I do not think that the failures of the past are at all relevant today. It was quite possible, although misguided, up to 1939 for people to believe that they would derive an advantage from carrying out an aggressive war. Nobody outside a lunatic asylum believes that today. Therefore, it may well be that we have a period of time in which to try to conduct our international affairs in a more rational way. I believe that we can produce an answer on disarmament. We should not look at disarmament in a watertight compartment. We must also consider the political conditions and the building up of that international machinery which is necessary to keep and preserve the peace.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the conclusion of the Private Business, when we return to the consideration of Public Business, is it your intention to continue the debate on disarmament or will the debate be on the Consolidated Fund Bill?

Mr. Speaker: All I can say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman is that we will go back to the Third Reading of the Bill.

It being Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

Orders of the Day — MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL [Lords]

Order for Consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, be now considered.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, to leave out from" That to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to consider the bill until anion is taken by the Company to the satisfaction of the people employed in Trafford Park and Eccles, the representative organisations, the local authorities and the police, with special reference to the Barton and Trafford Road Bridges, to reduce loss of productive time to a minimum and to organise the times of closing the bridges so as to minimise inconvenience to both the road and Ship Canal users; and calls upon the Minister of Transport to consider the urgent need for a modern bridge at Weaste, Salford; and further calls on the Ministers of Housing and Local Government, Health, and Transport, to take urgent action to eliminate the contamination of the Manchester Ship Canal in order to safeguard the health of the people between Salford, Eccles and Warrington.
As a result of this Motion appearing in the Press and of my meeting this weekend so many people on the roads in the area concerned, I am very pleased that we have taken the line we have taken. Let me make it quite clear at the beginning that my hon. Friends and I have nothing but good will towards the Manchester Ship Canal Company. In that area, we all owe too much to the company to take a narrow or sectarian view of what is at stake in this debate, and, therefore, our attitude towards this Bill is quite different to one which often finds expression in just a partisan way.
This House spends days and days and has special Committees for considering the affairs of Scotland, where there is a population of 5,192,000 people. This House spends days and days in considering Welsh affairs, and the population of Wales is 2,622,000. Thanks to my hon. Friends who have signed this Motion, for a change this House will consider an area in which 11 million people live, and where there is the greatest density of population in the country, and probably in the world, within a 50-mile radius of the centre, about which we shill be speaking in this debate.
In reference to my own association with the problems with which we shall be dealing, I remember listening to my father over fifty years ago, when I was a mere boy, speaking on some of the problems with which we are still confronted today. Later on, as a result of my being apprenticed in the same large works, I used to hear the men speaking about them. I am still associated with these men, and I know their views in regard to this matter. To sum up this aspect of my case, we have suffered from forty years of procrastination and frustration, and we think that the time has arrived when the Minister, on behalf of the Ministry, should accept the responsibility for taking the initiative to deal with the problems which my hon. Friends and I will raise during the course of this debate.
Our main concern will be stated under three headings, and I should like the Minister to take a note of them, so that he can fill in the details afterwards. The first concerns the delays at peak hours at Barton and Trafford Road bridges, the enormous loss of productive time, the irritation caused, the increased risks of accidents, and the confusion caused to transport, with which the hon. Baronet the Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) will be more familiar than most other people. I hope the hon. Gentleman will speak in the debate, not only from his knowledge gained when he represented Eccles in this House, but reinforced by his new responsibilities as chairman of one of the greatest transport concerns in this large industrial area.
While speaking on this subject, and in case I should forget it later on, I think it needs to be said that every living Member and former Member for Eccles is keenly in support of this Motion, and I refer to my hon. Friend the present Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) who has a great record in representing that division, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Mort), who represented it for many years, and the hon. Baronet the present Member for Withington.
Secondly, we shall be speaking about the urgent need for a twentieth century bridge between Stott Lane and Weaste, Salford. Thirdly, we shall deal with and give evidence of the seriousness of the pollution resulting in the contamination of this great industrial waterway, the


Manchester Ship Canal, which gives rise to air pollution over a very wide area.
The Manchester Ship Canal Company has prepared a very reasoned case, most of which I accept, and whoever is responsible for its preparation has done a first-class job. It is a reasoned case, and if only we can conduct our proceeding on the basis of reason of that kind and come to mutually acceptable conclusions, then democracy in this country will continue to function and bring about improved conditions for the people in every possible way.
I accept that case, with the exception of that part dealing with the delays on the canal and the difficulties of dealing with shipping, upon which I will make some observations later. I have here the Order Paper for 22nd February, 1956, and I also have with me, in case anyone challenges me on anything, a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate. I am pleased to say that on the Order Paper for that date were set out the proposed controls which, it was suggested at that time, should operate at Barton Bridge.
In giving the House, and in particular the Minister, the details of what I have just outlined, I do not propose to make any observations in regard to my own opinions. I shall state my case upon the basis of the opinions of others who act in a representative capacity, who are experienced and are employed in the area. First of all, there are six trades councils in the area, for Eccles, Manchester and Salford, Stretford, Altrincham, Walkden, and Farnworth, all keenly in support of the line we are taking tonight.
The first letter from which I want to give extracts is one which I have received from the secretary of the works committee at the Metropolitan-Vickers branch of Associated Electrical Industries, where approximately 25,000 men are employed in one factory alone in Trafford Park. The writer is acknowledged in the Manchester area as being an authority on transport problems, of which he has had long experience. He was the chairman of the Manchester Corporation Transport Committee for several years, and it is from the letter of Councillor Blackwell that I now quote:

I think I can let you have the feeling of the workers of this factory in regard to the inconvenience caused by the Barton and Trafford Road bridges …the working hours lost by many thousands of workers who have no alternative but to sit in buses while some very small ship passes through…Even at ordinary times in the day, it could be shown that the closing of the bridge not only affects the traffic in Trafford Park but now holds up all traffic between Sale and Salford. When this occurs the transport of Manchester, and of Salford, gets behind schedule, and it often occurs that bus drivers are at their wits' end to try and pull up what has been lost. The result could be"—
and is—
a danger on the roads. I well remember some years ago Lennox-Boyd coming down to the factory and promising that he would see to it that something would be done to stop the chaos, but I'm afraid that only the surface has been scratched. We must insist that a bridge should be built between Salford and, Trafford Park. Until this is done we shall continue to pile up on the already existing stupid position. We must also have a new road on the north-east side of Metro-Vickers To take some of the traffic out of the Park into Stretford. This has been promised for years. Until recently I was the Chairman of the Manchester Corporation Transport Committee and you may be assured that I do know something of what I am saying. I have lived in hope but I'm afraid that I shall die in despair. You are at liberty to use this letter as you may think fit. Best wishes, yours sincerely, C. Blackwell.
My first and only point on that to the Minister is that I hope we shall get an assurance tonight which will be worthy of the record of a representative man who writes in a responsible manner like that.
I quote from the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation which organises men engaged by Taylor Brothers, Ltd., steel works at Trafford Park:
The siting of the new road bridge is such"—
this is about the high level bridge, I had better tell the Minister, so that there may be no misunderstanding—
that it is difficult to see that it will do much to relieve the ever present hold ups when ships are passing through Barton Bridge. It having been stated that the Ship Canal Company consider that the present agreement to avoid, as much as possible, the opening for ship movement of Barton Bridge at works release times should no longer be necessary when the new road bridge opens, we feel that this idea should be strongly challenged.
And I strongly agree with that.
It has to be recorded, however, that for some reason or other this agreement has not been very effective. We welcome your efforts to get an extra bridge built between Barton Bridge and Salford, Yours fraternally. R. Guy.


I refer now to a letter I received from the vicar at Barton. I shall not read as much of it as I really should do, I think, because I want to pass on to other matters, but I wish I could get the whole of this letter on the record because it is one of the finest phrased letters I have ever read. Here are just two or three extracts:
I wish to offer encouragement, support and assistance in every effort you may be able to make in what I had begun to fear was a lost cause.
This is what we have got to be on our guard against in Britain. We have got so to conduct ourselves, and so exert independence, determination and courage that people will retain their confidence in the ability of the democratic machine to deal with their problems. That cannot be in modern life with the tempo of life as it is, unless people acting in a representative capacity remember their roots and are worthy of those who repose confidence in them, and are all things to all men. We must remember that if we are to save our democratic institutions from what happens in some other countries.
Present conditions are unjust and outdated, and any worsening would be unthinkable. I ask you to consider the impropriety, amounting to irreverence, of Divine Worship being interfered with, and hundreds of people impeded in church attendance, at the will of the Manchester Ship Canal Company. I have the honour to be, Respectfully yours, George Dalston
—the Rev. George Dalston. He says that his church must be rebuilt on the other side of the canal and taken away from its present site. That is an example of what we are complaining about.
I believe that the present Town Clerk of Eccles has done excellent work in connection with this matter. He has pre-paid a number of reports, copies of which I have with me. I cannot do justice to them because it would take too long to read them, but I do want to put on record the fact that he has prepared excellent reports, and I shall refer to them later. I have the minutes and reports he prepared, and I shall content my self with giving just one extract in which he says:
The Manchester Ship Canal Company and the Manchester steamship owners have indicated to their representatives that once the new high level bridge on the Eccles—Stretford by-pass is opened to traffic, which is expected to be about the beginning of July,

the Company and the Association will no longer wish to be bound by the existing agreement with the Committee whereby the swinging of Barton Bridge against the road traffic during morning and evening peak traffic periods is restricted. The Company and the Association have requested that therefore the whole question should be reviewed at an early date by all concerned.
I have the minutes of the meeting, a record of who were present, of the reaction of the Committee and of what took place.
The proposal of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the steamship owners created great concern throughout the area, and it is that concern which is reflecting itself in the observations which we are making tonight. In order that there should be no dubiety I share that concern with the people in the area, and so do my hon. Friends who have associated themselves with me in this Motion.
In my view—and I want to say this as strongly as I posibly can—there should be no compromise in any way over the present arrangements which have been made. If anything, they are not adequate, and I shall come to that later, when I wish to make an appeal with constructive suggestions which I hope the Minister will consider.
This area is the centre of a larger area where the density of population and the concentration of industry are probably the greatest in Britain.

Mr. L. M. Lever: In the world, taking a 50 mile radius.

Mr. Ellis Smith: My hon. Friend says in the world. In an area of this kind efficient transport is vital, and efficient transport means that there should be no interruption of the flow of transport. As it is, however, buses are held up if they arrive late, and they return late, and all this causes transport confusion, and it lasts for hours. It is time the Minister dealt with this to minimise delays. It is his responsibility. I have said nothing about other delays to men and women travelling on business or on pleasure or wanting to go to Old Trafford when as many as 60,000 may want to assemble together.
Some people say, "Oh, but you have a new high level bridge." My answer is, "Yes, it is a very high level bridge." It is the first bridge to be built between


Warrington and Salford for over seventy years. I have evidence from the late Sir Gurney Braithwaite who informed me on one occasion of the large number of bridges which have been built over the Thames, the large number of old bridges rebuilt, the expenditure of approximately £9 million on a new tunnel, and of the consideration being given to the building of a ring road round London. While all this expenditure may be justified from the point of view of London, it is time that more attention was given to the great industrial area of which we are speaking today.
No one has more cause to welcome the new high level bridge than I because four years ago I said in the House that the new bridge would be welcome, but it would be no solution to our Barton and Salford bridge difficulties. Four years later those observations are confirmed.
I should like to present more facts for the Minister's consideration. Scores of buses travel to Trafford Park daily, but few, if any, will use the new high level bridge three-quarters of a mile away. Hundreds, if not thousands, of cyclists travelling to Trafford Park will not be allowed to use the bridge. Neither will the hundreds of pedestrians who walk into Trafford Park be allowed to use it. The hon. Baronet the Member for Withington will probably give more detailed information on this point.
We believe in giving credit where it is due, and great credit is due to all those who have been associated with and contributed to the building of this magnificent high level bridge. It will provide an excellent road to serve the through north-south traffic. It will ease the Barton bridge problems, but it will not provide a solution for them.
I hope that hon. Members from constituencies in this area will be able to take part in the debate. I hope that if they have any doubt about what I say they will accept the word of the police and of other authorities who are not politically active in the area. The Eccles Journal has said of this problem that the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the Manchester Steamship Owners' Association say that

…they no longer wish to be bound by the existing agreement restricting times of swinging of Barton Bridge…
and the Barton Bridge Standing Committee had agreed that special observations should be made of the traffic conditions for a period of three months after the bridge was opened. The paper put forward the Ship Canal Company's plea for the elimination of the restrictions.
The police estimate that 80 per cent. of Trafford Park vehicular traffic will continue to use Barton Bridge even when the new by-pass is open. The county surveyor has carried out a traffic census and he predicts that the greater part of the bus traffic, together with other traffic, will continue to use Barton Bridge. The estimates made by the police and the county surveyor can be relied upon. They are additional evidence of the strength of the case that we put forward. They prove the need for this debate and the need for action by the Minister.
In my view the police deserve to be publicly thanked for the conscientious work that they do in difficult circumstances in controlling the traffic in the Barton and Trafford road bridges area particularly when men are returning from work. But all who live in this locality expect the Ministry to respond to the case that we are submitting today. The Manchester Ship Canal Company has given notice that it wishes to be relieved of the present limited and unsatisfactory restrictions. In our view, industry and the people in the area have suffered far too long and it is now the Ministry's duty to step in. The 1885 Act provides for this to be done. If provision could be made seventy-five-years ago to suit one man driving in a hansom cab, we submit that provision should be made to suit 60,000 people today, and it may be 120,000 people within the next twenty years.
The action that we shall take in connection with consideration of the Bill will depend on the Government reply at the end of the debate. I should like to enumerate our constructive suggestions. We ask, first, that the Minister of Transport should study the 1885 Act and consider its applicability to 1960 needs. If he has any doubts about our case, will he consult the organised workpeople and managements engaged at Metropolitan-Vickers and Taylor Brothers, and also


other places, like Gardner's at Weaste, where men and women have to travel in the other direction from places like Stretford? After consultation with all the interests concerned, will the Minister act in the direction we ask of him tonight?
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the urgent need for a new two-tier lift bridge, electronically operated, at Weaste, Salford? The Minister is well known in the area. His recent visits have been appreciated. He has been back to school and he has received a great welcome. The Minister is able, experienced and well-informed. He knows the Manchester Ship Canal problems, and if he were as good as his father he would be sitting on this side of the House. The next time he comes to Manchester I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will travel with him. I hope that they will go to the Weaste side and consult the various representatives and consider the need for a modern bridge.
The bottle-neck bridges on the Barton road, which have been tolerated for over seventy years, were good enough to carry ladies and gentlemen in hansom cabs, but they are not good enough to carry the heavy power-plants of the export trade, the oil tankers, the heavy lorries and the scores of buses which use the road today. Sixty thousand people are employed in Trafford Park. I know the danger of prophecy and I am always of my guard against it, but I have so much confidence in what I am now saying that I 'rave no hesitation in prophesying that if this country continues to expand and hold its own in world markets there will be 120,000 people employed at Trafford Park within twenty-five years. I base that prophesy on the fact that most of the concerns there are super-efficient and modern, and they spend large sums on research with a result that their export orders are gigantic.
In addition to that—I hope the Minister will take special notice of this—Salford has rehoused thousands of people at Little Hulton, about eight miles from Manchester. Manchester—I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester. Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) will emphasise this—is now considering taking 42,000 people out to Westhoughton. If those figures are correct, it means that 52,000 people will be living out there within a short time.
I listened very carefully to the Minister of Housing and Local Government the other night, and I prophesy that a new town will be built between Bolton and Eccles. That will probably mean that there will be 100,000 people living on that side of the canal. Hence the urgent need for preparing for that situation now. Therefore, we want a new, modern two-tier bridge which will take rail and road users, cyclists and pedestrians into Trafford Park.
I noticed—probably this is the explanation for what is to happen on Thursday—that the British Road Federation has had a delegation in Europe. Representatives of both sides of the House were on that delegation. I have a report which says:
The Mannheim—Ludwigshafen bridge, with its twelve streams of traffic for trains, trams, fast and slow motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians in either direction was 'magnificent' (Mr. Wilson), 'absolutely fantastic' (Mr. Wedgwood Benn).
I am quoting from the Guardian newspaper. Twice in my lifetime we have won the war and twice in my lifetime the Germans have lost the war. Yet the Germans build a modern bridge like that while we have to appeal to the Minister to consider our case.
I now wish to quote from the Eccles Journal of 8th July, 1960. Councillor Edwards was speaking in the Eccles Town Council and said that people could not sleep; they had a feeling of nausea and they were cooped up like rabbits. The report said:
Because of the obnoxious smell from the Manchester Ship Canal, Councillor G. K. Edwards cannot sleep at nights.
It goes on:
Turning to the Ship Canal problem, Councillor Sullivan said he attended a meeting a few days ago which was well represented by the local authorities…The ship canal is a serious problem and industrial concerns are responsible for effluent which they discharge into it. There is a further nuisance from a sulphur factory. These smells are so bad you can feel them and taste them if you walk around Barton.'
Then Councillor Edwards went on to say that he had been married for twenty years and he and his wife were often unable
to sleep because of the deplorable smell coming from the Ship Canal.


I could also quote from the Manchester Evening Chronicle, but I want to get on now, and so I conclude with the following.
I said earlier on that I accepted the reasoned case of the company. In that case it admits this pollution in the Ship Canal. It then goes on to say that it has no control over it. As it has become so serious, the question arises as to who has control over it. We think the Minister ought tonight to accept the responsibility for taking the initiative to deal with this problem, about which I shall give some evidence.
This raises a very serious problem which is increasing every year. Here are the facts which no one can deny. One hundred and fifty sewerage works pour their discharge into the rivers or streams or direct into the Manchester Ship Canal. Two hundred and fifty outlets pour their trade effluent direct into the Ship Canal. We sing about the Blue Danube, but in the Manchester area we have running through there the "Black Irwell". It receives 45 million gallons of trade effluent a day, plus 37 million gallons of sewerage effluent.
The River Mersey joins the Ship Canal at Irlam—my greatest disappointment tonight is that my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), who used to live on the banks of the Ship Canal, is not present to take part in this debate—and it receives 56 million gallons of trade effluent, plus 25 million gallons of sewerage effluent per day plus the discharge from the Manchester and Salford sewerage works direct into the ship canal. This mixes with the oil that drifts from the oil tankers and the chemicals that flow into the canal, and so we get the terrible nuisance and the odours and smells to which expression was given at the Eccles Town Council meeting.
Our Motion has served a very useful purpose. It has brought these facts into the light of day. It has focussed the national searchlight upon a problem which ought to have been dealt with years ago. It has focussed the national searchlight upon facts which ought to be dealt with before it is too late and before a very serious situation arises in the area.
I have stated the case in as reasonable a way as is possible for me bearing in

mind the feelings of emotion that I have, since I was born in the area and have lived there all my life. I think about the people there, I share their disappointments and aspirations, and my only desire is to serve them. I am very pleased to have had this opportunity of speaking on their behalf and of trying to remedy the grievances which they naturally have living in an area where the situation to which I have referred has been brought about by the industrial conditions.

7.37 p.m.

Sir Robert Cary: I must tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and his hon. Friends that they have rendered a great service to the area concerned by tabling their Motion. The time of the House of Commons is valuable, but, as the hon. Member has illustrated in his speech, this also is a most valuable area of our country. The area has played a great part in an unforgettable past, and I agree with the hon. Member that it may reach new levels of prosperity and strength in an unpredictable future. Let us hope that in the sentiments of that future those who continue to represent Manchester in this House will do so with a sincerity like that of the hon. Member. I have known the hon. Member for many years, and he has made kindly references to me in his speech.
Years ago it was my privilege to represent the Eccles constituency, and it is nearly thirty years since I attended my first gathering in the Eccles Town Hall with the local authority and representatives of the Ministry of Transport to discuss the then crying problem of Barton Bridge. Yet it is only at this late hour—in 1960—that there is to be a new high level bridge, which is supposed, at first glance, to solve the problem of the Barton Bridge. The essence of what has been said by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South proves, I believe, that there is no solution in the creation and building of that high level bridge, desirable and wonderful though it appears in the general scheme of our national transportation system.
The agony of Barton Bridge continues today, and will continue for many months, perhaps years, in the future. I


see no solution to the Barton problem until a new bridge is created to serve the local needs which have been indicated by the hon. Member. It cannot be a quick solution to this problem. It will take years to realise it, but the main point made by the hon. Member proves that even at this late hour the Ministry of Transport should embroil itself. We could then have an interval of time, perhaps six months, during which the proposal by the Canal Company, more or less to continue the existing facilities in the opening and closing of the bridge in order to facilitate traffic, could be operated, and there would be an opportunity on the Estimates of the Ministry of Transport next year to consider the matter again. This would give us sufficient time to see what part the new high level bridge had played.
Both as a Member of Parliament and as chairman of the Lancashire United Transport Company operating the biggest fleet of buses in the area and the greatest number of public service vehicles into Trafford Park, I believe that the problems will remain much the same. Indeed, I shall quote an extract from the report of my operating manager, who is a member of the Barton Bridge Standing Committee, which is presided over by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann). The extract says:
It is expected that all through North-South and South-North traffic will use the new motorway and that local traffic into Trafford Park will continue to use the swing bridge. As far as the buses are concerned, with the exception of those operating to Bolton. they will continue to use the swing bridge.
The operation of these few vehicles of mine from Worsley to Bolton in no way concerns the bridge. The majority of my public service vehicles must still find their way in and out of Trafford Park on tine schedules which most of us know about.
This Private Bill is important to the Canal Company and the Motion expresses the wish that the Second Reading be refused unless certain action is taken. That is a Parliamentary method of control, but, naturally, I hope that the Motion will be withdrawn and that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will go as far as he can in meeting the invitation put forward by

the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South. It now becomes the national duty, in view of what has been said by the hon. Member, of the Ministry of Transport directly to embroil itself in the affairs of Barton Bridge. This is a commitment into which my hon. Friend cannot enter tonight, but he could at least consider with the greatest sympathy the plea of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South.
Let us make a beginning now. I have illustrated my point by showing the agony that I personally have suffered because of delay over thirty years in waiting for the high level bridge, only in the end to find that it brings no solution to the local problem and to some other problems. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South mentioned cylists. I have sat on the joint committee concerned with another transport problem, the Dartford Tunnel. That tunnel was planned in the late 1920s and would have been suitable for the traffic of the 1930s. But it will be quite inadequate when it is opened in about 1964.
Cyclists wishing to pass through this tunnel must go into parks at the entrance, take their bicycles on to the lower decks of buses and put them into bicycle racks, and then themselves travel on the upper deck, paying 6d. to go through the tunnel. Cyclists are not to be allowed to use the new high level bridge. Yet in the North of England we also have cyclists and cycle clubs. Perhaps what is to be done in Dartford Tunnel for cyclists may be a partial solution to the problem which exists at the new high level bridge. I am certain that the prohibition on cyclists from using the bridge is likely to cause considerable local indignation and anger and that we shall hear much about it from individual constituents in the years to come.
I do not wish to delay the House by giving all the time schedules and my own experiences as Chairman of Lancashire United Transport. Suffice to say that the Canal Company has taken as big a step as it can. Let us remember, whilst we plead for the export trade and the needs of business in Trafford Park, that the Canal Company has a transport duty in the same business. The canal will remain one of our greatest civil engineering works, not only sustaining


Manchester as a great commercial capital but making it one of the great seaports of this country.
There is a special Parliamentary interest involved here, because I believe that the Canal Company will remain our biggest Parliamentary endeavour. It took the promoter of the original Bill, Mr. Adamson, three years and £350,000 in gold to get the Bill through Parliament. First the House of Lords and then the House of Commons threw it out. Committees sat on it for 175 days, the Lords Committee, in one Session, asking 25,000 questions of 151 witnesses and printing the results in 1,861 pages.
All hon. Members received particulars about housing the other day which said that housing was the greatest single civic measure which Parliament was asked to deal with. I still think, however, that the promotion of the Canal Company holds for us Parliamentarians the civic record for a single Bill.
Estimates are made for all great undertakings. This will apply to my hon. Friend when he comes to decide whether a bridge should be built. The Ship Canal estimates were below the actual cost by half. Before the Canal could be completed, the company went broke and that splendid corporation, the Manchester Corporation, came to its rescue and lent it £5 million to achieve its object.
One of my predecessors who represented Eccles in the House immediately following the First World War, Mr. Marshall Stevens, when the great Trafford family estate was sold, saw the vision of the silent canal alongside the great Trafford Estate and Park and all this wonderful engineering machinery with its potential for our future.
These problems could not have been foreseen then and it is for us now to find solutions to them. I therefore sincerely hope and pray that my hon. Friend will make a firm engagement with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South that at long last a bridge will be built over the Manchester Ship Canal to meet national needs and, in particular, the wishes of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I must agree at once that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) has very

fairly put the case from the point of view of hon. Members opposite and I very much appreciate the fair way in which he has spoken against the Motion.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thought that he spoke for it.

Mr. Brown: In supporting the Motion I shall not go into the history of the construction of the Manchester Ship Canal, which has served and continues to serve a useful purpose and which has helped to make the City of Manchester great. However, there is no reason why a great engineering feat should be allowed to continue to pour out filthy stenches which poison the people Who live along the canal's embankments and which spoil a great engineering accomplishment.
There seems to be some doubt why we have put down the Motion and there seems to be an idea that we have done so out of vindictiveness and spite against the Manchester Ship Canal Company. It is just as well that I should begin by disabusing the minds of those who hold that idea. We who support the Motion are not standing in the way of progress, but are making a genuine attempt, as we did four years ago, to improve the situation.
Our approach to the problem is the same as it was in 1956. We want all the improvements which can be made to clear up the pollution of the canal and to increase travelling facilities for transport and pedestrians. Those improvements will not be made unless the House of Commons, with the assistance of the Department concerned, asserts its responsibility and determination to see that something is done. We are not vindictive and spiteful, and an analysis of our record in the House will show that we stand for progress. But we stand for progress made with greater rapidity than has been the case in connection with the canal over the last few years.
This occasion is an opportunity afforded by the democratic machine to ventilate and remedy some of the grievances of the people. It is our job to ventilate them. Let me read an extract from a letter which I have received from a well-known resident of that part of Lancashire who says:
It may be that we live in times, when Parliament is not disposed to balance the


elementary rights of a few thousand private citizens against the interest of commercial enterprise, powerful and wealthy enough to enst political and legal support on a formidable scale. But, if that day has been reached, Members should reflect that they long ago left democracy and true government behind them.
Never let it be said that we of the House of Commons are leaving democracy behind. If we were to do so, it would be a sad day for democracy as we understand it, and if that day were ever reached, the edifice of democracy would crumble. Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of democracy and if we fail in our individual responsibility, then democracy will fail.
On an occasion like this, all hon. Members should accept responsibility, on whatever side of the House they sit. We are seeking to ensure that the Manchester Ship Canal Company faces its great responsibility. The construction of the canal was a great engineering feat jus, as the building of Barton Bridge was a great engineering feat. Why spoil it? Why allow the pollution which has continued for years, in spite of all the resources at the company's disposal—technical, engineering and financial—to spoil this great waterway from the West coast, a waterway which has made Manchester a great commercial city?
I hope that when we have ventilated the grievances of the people, the Minister will go forth with a greater determination, than has been shown in the past to get this problem solved. I do not blame the Parliamentary Secretary for the fact that the problem has not been solved. In 1956, the then Parliamentary Secretary said that he had no Departmental responsibility. I agree, but the Government have a responsibility, local authorities have a responsibility, the county council has a responsibility and the House of Commons has a responsibility for remedying the grievances of the people.
On 22nd February, 1956, we had a short debate on this subject. It was a debate which should have lasted longer and these same grievances of which we now complain should have been more thoroughly ventilated. My hon. Friend was tolerant and reasonable, and at the end of the short debate he withrew the Motion. But we have not forgotten, and the people living in the district will not

let us forget. We are constantly reminded of the situation.
During that debate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) made a humorous, though sincere, speech. He lived on the banks of the canal in Irlam for forty-seven years. Who can speak with greater authority than someone like that? When my hon. Friend had an opportunity to move he went to live in a more salubrious atmosphere. Good luck to him. When he left, he did not forget the people who were still living on the banks of the canal, and some of my hon. Friends know that the canal runs through the urban district of Irlam. One cannot escape from it.
There it is. I know that it is no business of his, but it is a matter of interest to his Department, and if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary takes the trouble to examine and analyse the proceedings of the Irlam Urban District Council and the proceedings of the Eccles Council—the hon. Member for Withington and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) know what those records contain—he will find details of discussions and the results of deputations by those councils.
I am informed that efforts have been made locally to try to put this matter right. They have no desire to trouble the House, or the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's Department, but they have a profound desire to help the people living in the district to remedy this grievance. They have been met with bureaucracy. I am not prepared to say how far that is true, but they felt the meanness of the autocratic attitude of the Manchester Ship Canal so much that they decided to send their complaint to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Lee) in whose division Irlam is situated. When a state of affairs like that arises, it is about time that somebody, somewhere, sat up and took notice. This has been going on for many years, and I hope therefore that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will consider the problem of pollution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South mentioned the colossal increase in the number of workers in that part of Lancashire, namely, Trafford Park and Metro-Vickers. Most of them come from


Salford and Manchester. For a few years the Salford City Council has been attempting to find somewhere to develop to cater for the overspill. It tried Mobberley, but they could not go there. It tried another place in Cheshire which I do not want to mention, but they would not have them there. These people must live somewhere. It would not be British to try to prevent them; it would be more British to try to help them to live in reasonable living conditions.
Eventually—though I understand the proposal has not been finalised—they will come to the constituency in which I live. We welcome them. Our Socialistic principles carry us beyond boundaries, and we welcome the people who have been living under adverse conditions for many years, but when they migrate from Salford and Manchester to Little Hulton, Westhoughton, and Hindlay, they will have long distances to travel to work. I am concerned about that. This may be a point for the hon. Member for Withington and his directors to consider. An extra fleet of buses will have to be put on. If that is done, extra profits will be made, and facilities will be required to carry the buses. I am not concerned about the profits of the company. I am concerned about the facilities for people travelling to and from work. That is important, and it is something which is not sufficiently emphasised in this House.
I have listened to debates on productivity. Everyone is shouting for increased productivity. The Prime Minister has asked the industrialists to increase their exports. The essential point to remember is that the nearer one gets the workmen to the point of production, the sooner greater productivity ensues. I am therefore anxious that the Department should give consideration to providing the facilities required. I know that I shall be out of order if I start to draw on my experience in the mining industry where men travel from three to four hours before they get to the point of production. That ought not to happen in this modern age.
I agree with my hon. Friend's prophecy that this development is bound to take place, but, as this development takes place and there is an extension of work

in the area, there must at the same time be an expansion of travelling facilities and amenities for the workpeople.
I come back to the Bill before the House. I repeat that we have no vindictiveness or spite against the Manchester Ship Canal Company. We are anxious to help, and have been all along, but does it not strike the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that this is our second attempt to secure some improvement in travelling facilities and to get the Canal purified? It would not cost very much to do that. With the products now on the market, purification of the Canal could be carried out from the Mersey estuary to the Manchester Docks.
It is determination that we want. We want the Manchester Ship Canal Company to realise that it has a responsibility other than that of confining its activities to its offices and making, or helping to make, Bills of this character. I want the company to ask itself how far and to what extent its actions and policies will affect the people living on the banks of the canal. I want the company to consider the men and women who work and live round the canal, because this area has the heaviest density of population. People are living in abominable conditions; conditions which ought not to be tolerated in a Christian country.
Can we not remedy this situation and remind the Manchester Ship Canal Company that, although the Bill contains all the things it needs to operate its commercial business, it pays no regard to the conditions prevailing in the lives of the homes of the people? We want it to realise how strongly we feel about this matter. The strength of our feelings arises from what we have seen of the conditions which exist there, and we are resolved, whether or not the company likes it, to keep ventilating this question until we see a different set of conditions prevailing in that area.

8.10 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow him for long on the subject of pollution. That is not to say that I do not sympathise with him and those who live close to the banks of this canal. In recent months in my constituency I have had very good reason to appreciate just


what those people's feelings can be in connection with smells arising from polluted streams, whether they are canals or rivers. As the hon. Member said, there are ways and means of combating this, and one of the first things to be done is to get effluent agreements between the responsible authorities and the companies whose factories cause these polluting effluents.
I want to turn for a few moments to they main plea contained in the Motion. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) was extraordinarily reasonable in the terms in which he moved it. I was glad that he expressed no plea for any measure likely to hinder the shipping in the canal. All those who understand this area—I am not well acquainted with it on the ground, but I ha re studied the problem—realise that it would be just as fatal to stop the ships moving as to stop men getting to and from their work. The cargoes from the ships often consist of raw materials for use- in the factories in which the men will work. Equally, the ships take away the fin shed or semi-finished products made in those factories. The one is as broad and large as is the other. The hindrance to shipping will be equally damaging to local industry as would be the hindrance to these men and women going to and from their work across the swing bridge.
Nevertheless, I was horrified to learn during the course of the debate that the new high level bridge will be incapable of carrying pedestrians or cyclists. I would ask my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to get his experts to consider this problem and to see whether it would not be possible to hang additional decks on either side of the new high level bridge, to take a footway for pedestrians and a small cycle track. I agree that pedestrians and cyclists should not be allowed on the carriageway of a bypass road which forms part of the ring road system around Manchester, but I car not believe that it is beyond the ingenuity of man to accommodate additional light traffic on either side of the main bridge structure.
As for the proposal in the Motion that there should be an additional modern bridge at Weaste, Salford, I would remind hon. Members opposite of the inescapable fact, which is not always recognised when one talks of bridges, that

what goes up has to come down. If we build a high level bridge over an obstacle such as the Manchester Ship Canal, it necessarily means long approach roads so that the bridge can be reached by way of a reasonable gradient which modern vehicles can climb without great difficult and down which they can descend on the other side. Workmen who would cross on foot, on bicycles or motor cycles, or in motor vehicles, would necessarily have to make a considerably longer journey to get up to the height at which such a bridge would have to cross the Canal. It would not be nearly so convenient for them as the existing swing bridge.
Furthermore, I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the promoters of the Bill, in their letter of explanation, incorporate a very reasonable offer in paragraph 6. They say:
After the new high level bridge is opened for traffic the Company"—
that is, the Canal Company—
will continue to operate the present arrangements at Barton for not less than six months until the Standing Committee referred to in paragraph 4"—
that is, the consultative standing committee which had previously been organised—
have had time to review the traffic arrangements in the light of experience of the new high level bridge.
We must surely agree that that is a reasonable offer. We must see what is going to happen and how the situation is altered when the new high level bridge is opened. Having said that, however, I would not detract from the plea made to the Minister of Transport by hon. Members opposite that there should be an additional high level bridge for the use of these workmen, as opposed to the present high level bridge, which is more for long-distance traffic.
Having said that, I would ask hon. Members opposite seriously to consider what it would mean if the Motion were carried. It would be a great hindrance to the use of the canal by shipping, and although hon. Members opposite might, for the time being, avoid one sort of trouble, they would very soon get themselves into another sort of trouble. In those circumstances, I hope that the Motion will be withdrawn.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. W. T. Proctor: This debate provides an opportunity to consider the whole canal problem. I am sure that I am speaking for all my hon. Friends when I say that we have no hostility to the Manchester Ship Canal Company. We applaud everything it has done to increase prosperity in the area, and we recognise that in connecting Manchester, Salford and Eccles with the sea it has done a great service. We want to see an efficient flow of shipping on the canal as well as of road transport on the roads.
The great development of road transport in recent years has made this problem a bigger one than it was in the old days. The hold-up of traffic on Barton Bridge is a veritable nightmare to the tens of thousands of people who travel over it and go to work in the Trafford Park Trading Estate. I look forward to a great relief of this problem when the new high level bridge opens. I was startled to hear some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), say that this is "no solution at all". The hon. Baronet said that it was no solution. I was mainly responsible for organising the conferences leading to the promotion of this wonderful bridge. It is a tremendous step towards a solution. It will remove the through traffic, and no one can estimate the benefit of this until we have experience of the position after the opening of the new bridge.

Sir R. Cary: May I say that I was confining my observations to the local problem? As a solution to the wider problem of the Lancashire County, it has much to recommend it, but I do not think it is a great contribution to the solution of the immediate local problem.

Mr. Proctor: I wish to assure the hon. Baronet that it will be of great help to a local problem if we get rid of the through traffic. Queues of vehicles will be much shorter. But the benefits to my constituents will be lost if there is any interference with the present priorities of road traffic at peak periods. I am not sure that I can regard favourably what is said by the company:
The Company appreciate that the operation of the swing bridges across the Canal must necessarily cause some inconvenience…After the new high level bridge is opened for

traffic the Company will continue to operate the present arrangements at Barton for not less than six months until the Standing Committee referred to in paragraph 4 have had time to review the traffic arrangements in the light of the experience of the new high level bridge.
That is a carefully worded declaration which gives nothing away. It says until they have considered it, not until they have agreed to any changes. If there are any changes in the present priorities over the Barton Swing Bridge, it will be of no benefit to the local people. I want a guarantee that the standing committee will have to agree to the changes before the company make them. It is not a great thing to ask, that we should set up a committee to consider these problems and that it should agree before priorities are changed. Those priorities took a great deal to secure in the first instance.
The ideal solution to all the problems would be more bridges over the canal. We require new ideas. This high level bridge is good but costly. We should put the "backroom boys" to work to see whether it is possible to get a pontoon bridge capable of being quickly pushed across the canal. If the bridge were a mile from Barton Bridge, with the road on each side, it could keep the traffic on the canal going—because of the slow movement of the ships—and also the traffic on the road moving continuously. We should consider the matter along such lines.
There is something wrong in a world in which we can build expensive equipment in connection with instruments of death, when we can go to Australia and put up the most expensive installations available for the purposes of war, and yet we cannot get a few bridges put across the Manchester Ship Canal. Even from a defence point of view, it is necessary that we should have more bridges than exist at present. The Canal Company should join in the agitation and we should ask the Minister and the Government to set up a committee of inquiry which could examine the whole problem and ascertain the facts.
Such a committee should consider the road traffic problem and the facilities for crossing the canal available to the workers at Trafford Park which is one of the most valuable assets in the country. I doubt whether there is


another square mile of ground which is more valuable to us than Trafford Park. The facilities for crossing the canal are a disgrace to the Ministry of Transport and to all those who have been dealing wall the matter for the last forty years. This one bridge is not enough. We require facilities for people to cross at the point where they work which would be somewhere not far from Stocklake.
The next thing to consider would be facilities for shipping on the canal and this matter should be investigated scientifically. The ship owners are very efficient, but the cost of delaying ships must be great. We must look to a solution of the road problem and the canal problem, and it would pay us to solve both problems.
Much has been said about the pollution of the canal and the possible danger to health. One hundred and fifty sewage works discharge to the rivers and streams flowing direct into the upper reaches of the Manchester Ship Canal. There are over 250 outlet works which pour trade effluent into the canal. The records of the Mersey River Board show that the River Irwell alone receives 45 million gallons of trade effluent a day and 37 million gallons of sewage effluent a day. The figures for the River Mersey, which joins the Ship Canal at Irlam, are 56 million gallons of trade effluent per day and 23 million gallons of sewage effluent per day. We have not yet established the cause of poliomyelitis. At one time Eccles was one of the worst spots in the country for polio and this might be the reason. To turn the sewage effluent into fib; canal and allow the ships to churn it up and distribute it down the canal is something which is beyond decency in a modern civilisation. I call on the Minister and the Government to hold this inquiry and they should certainly inquire into that side of the matter.
The Minister of Transport and his Ministry are to be congratulated on the work done in connection with the high level bridge. I believe it will be a great relief to traffic, but I make a special plea to them to consider the problem as a whole and to see if we cannot adopt some new ideas, not tremendous structures 100 ft. high, but to have more bridges which could be pushed across the canal to keep traffic moving. I should like to be able to stand on Barton Bridge and to see as many bridges from

there as I can see when I stand on Westminster Bridge. I am sure that if the canal were near London we would have more bridges over it. I invite my hon. Friends to keep up this attitude and to make sure that we have a Parliamentary fight for a solution to this problem.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. L. M. Lever: We are here tonight to consider the Manchester Ship Canal Bill and to give it a Third Reading. I should explain to the House that the objects of the Bill have no relevance to the very weighty and material problems to which my hon. Friends have referred. The purposes of the Bill are:
to amend the powers of the Company to charge—

(i) wharfage rates and canal tolls on goods carried in vessels using the canal;
(ii) rents on certain vessels using the Runcorn Docks; and
(b) to extend the powers of the harbour master in relation to controlling the entry of pleasure craft into the harbour;
(c) to make provision as to the removal of vessels left without the consent of the Company in any part of the Bridgewater undertaking;
(d) to extend certain provisions of the Road Traffic Acts, 1930 to 1956, to dock roads vested in the Company;
(e) to authorise the closing of Moore Lane Swing Bridge between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m., subject to certain conditions.
I should explain that the Moore Lane Bridge is away from main traffic routes. It serves local traffic and is virtually unused between midnight and 6 a.m. I feel it time that we should understand and appreciate the objects of the Bill, which have no relation whatever to the very important questions referred to in the eloquent speeches made by my hon. Friends. For these reasons, this House should give the Bill its Third Reading.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I say to my hon. Friend that we know a little about procedure and Parliamentary practice? We are regular in our attendance and we take an interest in the proceedings. Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy-Speaker direct the proceedings of this House and they would not have accepted my Motion if it had been out of order.

Mr. Lever: No one has suggested that the righteous and correct Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith)


and others of my hon. Friends was not perfectly in order and within the procedure of the House. If my hon. Friend will listen to what I have to say, he will learn that I applaud the setting down of the Motion, but I thought, in view of the emotions felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House about essential human problems and the necessity to solve them, that I ought to bring the House down to reality about the objects of this Bill to which we are trying to give a Third Reading.
I should also explain for the benefit of the House and the country the importance of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, not only to Manchester and Lancashire, but to the whole of the north of England, and indeed, to the whole economy of the country. The Port of Manchester which the Ship Canal serves, is one of the major ports of the United Kingdom. The total tonnage of cargo which passed through the port last year was more than 18½ million tons, which was a greater tonnage than passed through any other port in the United Kingdom, with the exception of London.
The House and the country should know the importance of this Bill. It should be known that when the Manchester Ship Canal Company introduces a Bill it does so for weighty reasons and because it is anxious to give full flow to the exports manufactured by the skill and genius of workers in Trafford Park, in all parts of Lancashire, Yorkshire, the rest of the North of England and the Midlands. They all use the Manchester Ship Canal.
I should point out to my hon. Friends that the Manchester Ship Canal is no mere private enterprise concern. It owes its very existence to municipal enterprise. The initiative was given by the City of Manchester towards the end of the last century when, thanks to the genius of Daniel Adamson, the Ship Canal from Manchester to Liverpool, was provided for the grand sum of £15 million.
Imagine today having no Manchester Ship Canal. Imagine today this country having to decide whether we needed a waterway from Manchester to Liverpool. Believe me, if the canal had not been built when it was, it would certainly not be built today. I am only emphasising

the importance of the Ship Canal to the City of Manchester, over which I had the honour to preside three years ago as its first citizen.
The contribution which the Corporation made some seventy years ago to the establishment of this canal enables it to serve not only the environs of Manchester but also this country well. Therefore, I hope that the Bill will receive a Third Reading. I also hope that the matters which my hon. Friends have brought before the House will receive the support of the House. After all, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South, my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) and my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) have spoken with authority and with feeling, and that feeling represents the wishes of the people in that area.
Let us consider the problems. The object of the Motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South is to have an additional bridge between Barton and Weaste. We say quite distinctly that there is no objection to that; in fact, there is very good reason for having this additional bridge. Let us remember that that area is not what it was. People who lived in the town in the old days were nearer to their work, and it was easier for them to reach their work. That is not so today. All our industrial areas—Manchester, Salford and Eccles—have inevitably had to expand into Ince, Westhoughton and Little Hulton to provide better housing conditions. Those working at Trafford Park have always been of tremendous strength to the economy of this country. I shudder to think what this country would have done in the war defending our liberties without Trafford Park.
Of course, the Ship Canal Company operates within its powers. No one suggests that it does not. None the less, it is difficult for the Ship Canal Company if every time it produces a Bill for the good of the company and in the economic interests of this country, important social problems are rightly presented to it by my hon. Friends. The Manchester Ship Canal Company has to get on with its business. In fairness to them, I will say that hon. Members who have rightly agitated about these problems realise that the company has to get on with its business consistent with justice for the people living near the canal.

Mr. T. Brown: I agree that the Manchester Ship Canal Company has to get on with its business, but the people living on the canal banks have the right to live in decent conditions.

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend's intervention emphasises the strong feelings which are held on this matter. It is quite true that people living on the banks have a right to live in decent conditions. Equally, the company has a right to carry on its legitimate business. I say to the Minister that the provision of an additional bridge is a matter of paramount urgency. While I support the Third Reading of the Bill, I also support the spirit of the Amendment.

Mr. Charles Grey: My hon. Friend is on both sides of the fence.

Mr. Lever: I tried earlier to explain that the points contained in the Amendment have no direct relevance to the objects of the Bill from a strict, legalistic point of view.
I hope that the poor Manchester Ship Canal Company will be relieved of its problems by the Minister of Transport and that the next time it introduces a Bill my hon. Friends will say, "Thank you", to the Minister. I hope they will be able to say that they need not ventilate any difficulties because they have all been met. The provision of an additional bridge is not a responsibility of the company. It is a responsibility of the Minister in conjunction with the highway authorities concerned.
Questions have been raised about the operating times of Barton Bridge. In fairness to the company, I must point out that there is in existence a representative democratic committee seeking to meet the wishes of those who travel across the bridge to and from their work in Trafford Park. I have no doubt that this excellent committee—I welcome its excellent work—will continue to discuss methods of easing the serious traffic problem. After getting up early to go to work, it is irritating to be prevented from getting there with the alacrity that he wishes because of the operation of the bridge. Similarly, it is irritating after a hard day's work to be held up for hours in getting home to enjoy the relaxation which the workers from Trafford Park richly deserve.
The next point concerns pollution from the Irwell and the Mersey and other streams into the Ship Canal. This is not the responsibility of the Ship Canal Company, which is not responsible for sewage disposal and dealing with trade effluent. This is the duty of the rivers boards within the limited powers given by statute. I sympathise with those who live on the Canal banks and I hope that this difficulty will be eliminated as soon as possible, but the legal responsibility belongs to the river boards and not to the Manchester Ship Canal Company.
I hope that the Minister will give us some satisfaction upon all these issues. I support the Third Reading of the Bill and its objects, which are not in conflict with points rightly raised by my hon. Friends. The first point I emphasise to the Minister is that there must be an additional bridge. Secondly, there should be consultation. I am sure that the company will be most conciliatory. It has co-operated as far as it could, certainly since 1956, on the times of work of people who have to use the bridge.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government is not present. In fairness to him, I suppose that he thought that this Amendment was purely a transport matter and not one which related to public health. But I would say to him, as Nathan the prophet said to David under different circumstances, "Thou art the man" to deal with this problem of pollution. The right hon. Gentleman might have been present to answer these questions. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will inform the Minister of Housing and Local Government about the vital points concerning sewage disposal and the elimination of pollution to which my hon. Friends have referred and which concern his Department. The right hon. Gentleman ought to urge on the river boards and other authorities the necessity to get a speedy solution of this problem.
I have expressed my personal feelings in the matter. I have upheld the righteousness of the points which my hon. Friends have raised. I support them to the full without any qualification. What they have said is not an exaggeration. It is the truth. I know the facts from


my own knowledge. No one can gainsay the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South, Ince and Eccles, and even that of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary), who, I am sure, is sympathetic to the points which have been raised by my hon. Friends.
These points have not been raised lightly. They are important points to which I invite the Government to give very serious attention. We are not here concerned with a small population. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South referred to this matter. Within a fifty-mile radius of Manchester there lives a population of 15 million people. Its density is the greatest in the world. It constitutes about one-third of the population of this country. I emphasise this point so that the Government shall realise that we are not here concerned with a paucity of the population but with a large slice of it upon which the future life and prosperity of this country depend.

8.48 p.m.

Mr. James Watts: I am entirely and wholeheartedly in accord with what the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) said in his excellent speech. I also agree with the points of view which have been put forward with such accuracy and warm-hearted moderation by many hon. Members opposite.
The point Which I want to make to the Minister is that the importance of Manchester is that it is the centre of lines of communication in this enormous area and has been so since Roman times. This is Why the Romans had a little camp called Mancunium on the banks of the Irwell outside the collegiate church. It is also the reason why there will always be work in this area. The great difficulty Which has arisen in the district over the last few years is that Trafford Park has been created and thousands of people have gone to work there and have to be housed. The conditions in the factories there are fairly good, because they are modern. At least, the factories in Trafford Park have been planned, but this vast area of Manchester was not planned at all. In the time of my great-grandfather, whose father started our family business, the whole outside area

was engaged in farming and in Portland Street, where my firm's warehouse now stands, there were fields and sheep. The whole of the area went up in forty years. As a result, there is no plan of any kind.
This bad planning arrangement extends from Stockport right up to Accrington and from Liverpool to Huddersfield. This area, apart from a certain number of pretty places, is about the most ugly and most unpleasant place in the word in which to live. There has been no co-ordination and no plan for housing, transport, hygiene and effluent. The whole place calls for a review.
This is not a Manchester question at all. It calls for a Cabinet decision, which must be made, to review the conditions in the north-west of England, Which have been forgotten for far too long. Short of a Cabinet decision on a large basis, nothing can be done. I support the hon. Member for Ardwick in saying that there are two points of view: the little problems appertaining to the working of the Ship Canal and the bridges and, surrounding these problems and causing them, the appalling and enormous discomforts which have been brought to light today.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. John McCann: I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) will excuse me if I do not follow too closely his admirable speech about Manchester, but time is getting late and other hon. Members wish to speak. I want to say how pleased I am that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) has used his extensive knowledge of Parliamentary procedure to table this Amendment to allow us to discuss in general the problems which arise from the Manchester Ship Canal. I have had a long association with my hon. Friend and know of his interest in this problem, way back to the late 1920s and the early 1930s. I appreciate the spirit behind the Motion, although I, too, hope that in the end it will be withdrawn to allow the Canal Company to get on with the job which we have given it.
In my hon. Friend's excellent speech, I was interested to hear of the letters which he had received. Perhaps I may


declare an interest, because for four years I have been the chairman of the Standing Committee to which reference has been made. The Standing Committee arose as the result of a conference called by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) in 1951, when certain suggestions were made to the Ship Canal Company and certain restricted times were fixed. In 1956, the tames 'were found to be inadequate and a further conference was called, at which the standing committee was elected.
The Motion asks that nothing shall be done
until action is taken by the Company to the satisfaction of the people 
and it lists a number of people. My only reason for rising in this debate is in case the terms of the Motion were to be taken literally and people were to believe that nothing was being done.
The standing committee comprises the local authorities of Farnworth, Stretford and Swinton & Pendlebury; the Manchester Ship Canal Company; the Manchester Steamship Owners' Association; the Trafford Park Industries Association, representing the whole of the factories in the area; Lancashire United Transport, Ltd., which represents the four main transport companies which take the people into the area; the Eccles, Farnworth, Stretford and Swinton & Pendlebury Trades Councils and the secretary of the Trafford Park Industries Association. We have under review, therefore, the whole of the facets of this problem of inconvenience over the bridge, particularly at peak hours.
I am whole-heartedly behind my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South on the second and third points of his Motion. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones), I have lived for close upon forty-seven years on the banks of this canal, a id I know the terrific inconvenience that people have had to put up with, particularly on sultry summer days when a fairly deeply-laden ship comes along the canal and churns it up. It is not very pleasant, and there are many closed windows in that area when that happens.
I also recognise that, though we are tremendously pleased that the Government have at long last given us permission to build this new high level bridge,

we understood that the siting of it was such that there would be the least inconvenience to existing premises. I understand that along the whole length of the bridge, only five properties have had to be demolished, which to me seems to be a major achievement of draughtsmanship by the county architects. The real solution to the problem is a new bridge for foot passengers and cyclists, and, because of the terrain, some of us feel that this could be provided in the area of Stott Lane between Eccles and Weaste.
My hon. Friend may be interested in some information concerning the points which he raised from letters he had received. In the letter from the shop stewards at Metropolitan-Vickers, there was reference to the real solution being a new road in Trafford Park which would connect the new high level bridge with the existing roadways in the area. On 11th March of this year, the Trafford Park Industries Association, in a letter to my committee, said:
You will recall that we are pressing, together with the local authorities, for a new road through Trafford Park to connect with the new by-pass which is considered to be the complete answer to the problem of the peak hour traffic problem in Trafford Park. Priority has been given by the Lancashire County Council and the boroughs of Stretford and Urmston, and we are hoping that 'the Government will give it their early consideration.
I understand now that the matter is under active consideration and that before very long we will get that road, which will greatly alleviate the backlog of traffic which is caused every time the bridge closes.
One of the difficulties of the 1885 Act is that it specifically states that the Company should not close the bridge for more than ten minutes at each time. The Canal Company will not mind my saying that we have had different opinions on what exactly closing the bridge means; whether it means the swinging of the bridge, which opens the canal to traffic, or the closing of the gates, which closes the road to traffic. We contend that it is the closing of the gates, but the Canal Company contends that it is the swinging of the bridge, and because of that difference of opinion, sometimes seven or eight minutes is given as the recorded time for swinging, and that leads to a lot of misunderstanding.
We believe that every time the bridge is closed, it takes traffic about twenty-two minutes to move on to a road which in about three miles has fourteen major bends and an average width of about 14 ft. This is one of the major problems, and the Canal Company can do nothing at all about it. If we look at this matter in its proper context, other authorities in the area round the bridge should take some responsibility for removing this backlog.
The second letter referred to a statement that, for some obvious reason, agreement had not been effected. The obvious reason was the position of the standing committee, which for four years had been actively discussing this problem. On the question of the times of church services on Sundays mentioned by the Vicar of Barton, I understand that, for services at a church which is within two minutes' walk of the bridge, the bridge will not be closed from 10.45 a.m. to 11.0 a.m. and from 6.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., so that churchgoers will have time to cross, but they find it difficult to get back. Talk about thirsting after righteousness!
May I call the attention of the House to a slight inaccuracy in the very excellent publication by the Ship Canal Company? Paragraph 4 on page 2 lays down the times during which the Canal Company has agreed not to swing the bridge. After the first four, which are correct, it goes on to list 4.35 p.m. to 4.55, and 5.0 to 5.45, which is correct, but the last two, 9.35 p.m. to 9.55 and 10.10 to 10.30 p.m. were negotiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles in 1951. On the basis of the new agreement they were taken out. Paragraph (b) says that
to regulate outward bound vessels during the periods set out in paragraph (a)
and that is wrong. Paragraph (b) refers only to 5.0 to 5.45 p.m. Perhaps hon. Members would like to make that a Iteration.
The difficulty was that when the bridge was built in 1855 there was only horse-drawn traffic and, with the development of the Trafford Park area, which many hon. Members have discussed tonight, the difficulties have increased. It is the duty of the Committee and the House and the Minister of Transport to do all in

their power to make sure that the difficulties are mitigated.
We had first to assess peak hours in which the traffic was coming into the Park and going out. The representatives of the Canal Company have been very helpful in this regard. We did have a bit of trouble with the steamship owners. I understand that to keep a ship in the canal costs £600 a day in demurrage charges, and they do not want to take the risk of a ship's being held up for any length of time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stretford (Sir S. Storey) suggested that the only solution—I believe it is the only real solution—was the complete closure between 6.30 a.m. and 8.0 and 4.30 p.m. and 6.0 p.m. The Canal Company and the steamship owners found themselves unable to accept total closure for such a long period, so we had to reach a compromise. Having reached a compromise, one difficulty is that if we fix three-quarters of an hour between 5.0 and 5.45 it is not enough to stop any backlog of traffic pile-up, and the Company must reserve the right to swing outside those periods, and if there is a swing just before the restricted period buses cannot get into the Park and consequently, when the men finish, the buses are not there and when the buses are there the bridge begins to swing again. These are difficulties which we have had.
We have tried to avoid them by having all kinds of experiments. We tried avoiding right-hand turns outside the bridge. We tried it one Friday night. It almost got us hung, for we built up traffic almost as far as Salford. If my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) were here he would have agreed to seeing the tail end of the queue in Wigan, 21 miles away. Well, at least we tried it. We thought it would work, but it would not.
One of the beauties of the standing committee is that at all times we have asked people to send in suggestions. If anybody thinks that the British race is not a collection of inventive geniuses, let him look at the files of this standing committee. Some of the suggestions have been completely fantastic, but there have been some that we have been prepared to look at. Much of the time of


the local authorities in the area, particularly of highway authorities, has been spent on finding ways and means of obtaining the best results. We had a census of origin and destination. The Council was very helpful, and the police Lave been helpful, too, and we tried to re-route long-distance traffic out of the way. We are hoping that that may be useful when the new bridge opens.
We have just had the effect of the new working hours consequent on the shortening of the working week. We found people finishing earlier on Fridays and the bottleneck was built up before the restricted period came on. On 23rd July the committee decided:
I write to inform you that the Manchester Seamship Owners' Association have agreed to the alteration of the Friday evening 'restricted period' as indicated therein. The new restricted period'—4.15 p.m. to 5.0 p.m.—will he brought into operation from Friday next, the 29th July".
Therefore the Steamship Company, the Sup Canal Company and the standing committee are trying to meet the altered conditions, but it is not easy.
The Ship Canal Company argues, possibly quite rightly, "Why should we stiffer this inconvenience while nobody else does anything about it?" It makes the point that the only solution until the high level bridge is finished would be the staggering of hours, but the House no doubt will be told that the buses are already committed at other hours and therefore it is not easy to provide ac equate traffic convenience in order that factory hours may be changed. But we have looked at this question and we are happy to think that it is not the workers who are refusing to co-operate.
The position is not easy. The question of the new bridge and the old agreement was raised. The Ship Canal Company felt that when the new bridge was finished the company would be absolved from obligations under the 1885 Act. We asked the company not to be so hasty and to look at the problem when the new bridge is opened and particularly to look at the position in the dark and rainy nights Waiting for five or ten minutes is not so bad in the summer when the weather is fine, but at the end of a long dark when it is dark and raining it is a pretty grim business.
The company therefore has cooperated and has agreed that for a period

of at least six months, during which the police and the traffic authorities will he looking at the problem, it will honour the existing agreement. We shall put illuminated signs at Dumplington Circle so that drivers will be able to see from half-a-mile away whether the bridge is open or closed. If it is closed, they can go round the roundabout and along another route. We want also to put signs at Patricroft Bridge and Peel Green.
This is what the Committee has been doing in co-operation with other authorities. It has been a first-class example of co-operation between firms, the Ship Canal Company, the transport undertaking—which has a great deal to lose—the local authorities and the trade unions. We have been able to do a great deal, and it is accepted that the position would be much worse without the Standing Committee. The position, however, is still pretty bad. The only solution is a new bridge. I promise the Parliamentary Secretary that if he will offer a new bridge between Eccles and Weaste I shall have the greatest pleasure in winding up the Barton Bridge Standing Committee.

9.9 p.m.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Every man and woman in Salford will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and his hon. Friends for having raised this matter so forcibly. It is because my hon. Friend has his roots so firmly planted among the people that he is able to raise matters like this with such intimate knowledge of an issue as it affects thousands of industrial workers.
I have a friend who is a fitter at Metropolitan-Vickers. In Salford there is a slang term—" to be bridged". It refers to the occasions when people are held up by the bridge. My friend tells me that when the bridge swings it may take him two and a half hours to get home. This might be thought to be an exaggeration, but I assure the House that it is not, because many of these workers live in such places as Leigh, Bolton and Bury and have to catch trains when they have completed their bus journey from the works.
If these people are "bridged" they miss their train connections and it takes them up to two and a half hours to get home. Such men and women are getting up at half-past five in the morning to go


to work. In my view they should get a wage packet for getting up at that time in the morning without doing a day's work on top of it. One can understand their feelings when they are late for work in the morning or so late at night on top of their day's work, quite apart from the question of the loss of production involved.
A great deal has been said with expert knowledge by my hon. Friends about Barton Bridge. There is an equally serious story to be told about the Trafford Bridge. Trafford Road runs through the length of my constituency from the town hall at one end to the Manchester United Football Club ground at the other. The traffic along it is fantastic. There are tough dockers who sometimes take five minutes to cross the road. This is the normal condition. When we add to it the closing of the Trafford Park Bridge the situation is intolerable.
Let me give a personal example. I drive in my car to Trafford Bridge. When I get near the bridge I see a long line of lorries and cars ahead of me because the bridge is closed. I go to sleep for ten or fifteen minutes. I then wake up and am able to drive towards the bridge because the ship has gone through and the road is clear. When I get to the bridge, but before I cross, it swings again, and there I am for another ten or fifteen minutes. That is bad enough in the morning, but let hon. Members imagine this happening at tea time on a Friday as it did recently when 60,000 workers are pouring out of Trafford Park, which means that there is a solid block of thousands of people coming out of Trafford Park to go into Salford.
But it is often overlooked that many people travel in the opposite direction. There is an important group of engineering factories in my constituency—around Sir James Farmer Norton and Company. Many of these engineers live right outside Salford and have to travel home across the Trafford Bridge. Thus, there is an impossible situation such as arose on that Friday night.
I feel that the Ship Canal Company has no right to swing the bridge at such a time as that, knowing the inconvenience that it must cause. It should be made clear to hon. Members, who

may not, naturally, appreciate the full facts of the position, that at Trafford Bridge, unlike Barton Bridge, there are no restrictions at all as to the time when the bridge may be swung. I think that the next point will be a surprise to some of my hon. Friends, who otherwise do appreciate the situation. I am told on good authority that there are not more than half a dozen genuine cargo ships which need to go through Trafford Bridge every week—which is nothing.
How is it, then, that there is this constant swinging of the bridge? The answer is—if I may say so, the Ship Canal Company has some responsibility for this—that the little ships which are going through and causing Trafford Bridge to be swung are not cargo ships but ships carrying sand from lower down the canal to a small sand firm north of the bridge. In addition, there are dredgers going through. The Ship Canal Company has certain interests in both classes of ship, which are not of the highest importance compared with the cargo ships. I think it is intolerable that a community should be held up in this way for ships of not such major importance as all that.
We are all grateful for the high level bridge which has been built at Barton, but it will make very little difference to the congestion in our area. It may help the north-south through traffic—good luck to it—but it will not help to solve the problems of my constituents and the people in adjacent areas. The only alternative is a new bridge at Weaste. I spent a considerable time last weekend examining the canal at that point, and I find that there are many suitable spots for building such a bridge. In fact, the lie of the land is rather favourable for such a project.
Now I turn to the question of smell. My hon. Friends have referred to those who live on the banks of the canal. I want to refer to the 2,500 dockers who work on the ships in the canal. They have to work all hours of the day with this terrific stench. Two of my hon. Friends said that this is due to the effluent from factories and also to millions of gallons of sewage, but it is not only that. According to my friends on the docks, much of this smell arises from the nuisance created by ships which are in the docks throwing their rubbish and their toilet refuse into the canal. This


is an offence and the Canal Company is not responsible, but it is up to the company to prevent this nuisance being committed.
Why should Manchester and Salford suffer this treatment? It is an odd thing that those who do the hardest and most dangerous and dirty work always seem to get the rough end of the stick. These conditions would not be tolerated for a moment in the Home Counties or in London. Taking Manchester as a whole—I have never taken it as anything else and I am entitled to speak like that because I am Manchester-born and bred—I say that this would not be tolerated in that part of the country.
These are added burdens. Where there is muck there is money, but those who have to suffer the muck do not usually get the money. These long additions to the working day, which are not really necessary, are an injustice. A travel company once offered a prize for the best essay in a competition. The first prize was a week's holiday in Manchester. The second prize was a fortnight's holiday in Manchester. It is a bit thick—

Mr. J. T. Price: It is that.

Mr. Allaun: —that Manchester and Salford should suffer these unnatural grievances.
I shall be controversial not because I want to be but because I must. Great compliments have been paid today to the company, and they are mostly merited, but I think that the chairman of the company, Sir Leslie Roberts, has behaved, in my experience, in a highly autocratic way. I remember very well a meeting attended by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), myself representing Salford, East, the elected representatives of local authorities including Manchester, Salford and Eccles, and the elected representatives of the trade unions. Sir Leslie represented the board of directors of the Canal Company.
I must say that he treated those elected representatives as a feudal baron would treat his serfs. When we appealed for greater restriction of the bridges he said that it was impossible. Molotov was a beginner compared with this chap. When we asked whether he would at least go away and consider it, the answer was

again "No". I ask the House whether it is right that the chairman of a company like this should say to elected representatives of the public that he could not even consider the reasonable request that we were making in the interests of tens of thousands of workers.
There is a road, Wharf Road, which is owned by the Canal Company and which would help to relieve the fantastic traffic congestion at Trafford Bridge, but which the Canal Company is not prepared to allow to be used to reduce the burden.
We have had magnificent speeches from both sides of the House, and I now conclude by saying that we want three things. First, far from there being any relaxation of the existing restrictions on the closing of Barton Bridge, we want an increase, so that at teatime and in the morning around starting time there is a complete ban on ships passing through the swing bridge and therefore stopping workers going to and from work. Secondly, as quickly as possible, we want a new bridge across the Canal at Weaste. When I think of £4 million, I think it was, being spent on an underground crossing at Hyde Park, merely so that people can get across the road—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)indicated dissent.

Mr. Ellis Smith: How much is it, then?

Mr. Allaun: At any rate, it is a great deal of money, and I think that the country can well afford money to build a bridge at Weaste. So, thirdly, I wholeheartedly support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith).

9.1 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) are to be congratulated on bringing this matter before the House, for it highlights one of the coming crises of the next ten or twenty years—the need for an overall survey of our water supplies.
In sending hon. Members a statement of its case, the Manchester Ship Canal


Company has done everyone a service, and I hope that it will be able to give as good a service to the Minister of Housing and Local Government as it has given us. Its case makes an interesting and valuable document and there is one sentence of it which I want to quote:
…in dry weather the River Irwell consists almost entirely of sewage and trade effluents, with little or no clean dilution water.
If we can put a sputnik round the earth, it seems ridiculous that we cannot sieve sewage out of the River Irwell and the Manchester Ship Canal. Not to be able to do so is almost an anachronism.
I sometimes go along the banks of the River Tame which seems to be a good deal cleaner at those points than it is when it arrives at the Manchester Ship Canal, judging from some of the remarks of hon. Members from both sides of the House. After the things we have heard tonight, I feel that I can almost smell the canal from here. It seems that the canal is one of the largest navigable sewers in the world.

Mr. McCann: I want to make it quite clear that some of the effluent about which we are speaking is almost as pure as drinking water and that it would be unfair to those progressive authorities which treat sewage properly to suggest that all the effluent is undiluted sewage.

Mr. Rhodes: I see this merry little river wending its way and when I think of what happens to it, it makes me very sad, but it will make the people who live on the banks of the Irwell and in the vicinity of the canal even more sad in future.
This valuable document which the Canal Company has sent out unfolds a page of history. From 1885 onwards, there has been a growing number of Acts of Parliament promoted by first-rate local authorities in the North to cope with the ever-increasing need for water. The building of reservoirs reached its peak at the turn of the century. Local authorities in the North could not possibly have visualised that there would be a stoppage of all large-scale civil engineering during World War I. Following that war the country was hard up. We were then precipitated into another World War in 1939. Since then there has been

a stringent control of money and it has not been possible to improve the position.
The people who carried out this work in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century are to be commended and congratulated and their names forever revered for what they did for the local authorities, but the Manchester Ship Canal Company could not possibly have visualised what would happen in the future.
About two weeks ago a Bill sponsored by the Oldham Corporation was put through this House. It did the very thing which the Manchester Ship Canal Company put out in its circular. The Company said:
The River Board's general position has not been helped by the number of orders made by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government because of exceptional dry weather conditions enabling water undertakings at the upper ends of the various Catchment areas to reduce the volume of compensation water sent down from their reservoirs. Compensation water is clean water which is normally sent down the stream by way of compensation for the fact that water authorities have dammed, for use by domestic consumers and industry water which would otherwise flow down the Rivers.
This is happening all over the North. When provision was originally made to provide water for domestic and industrial use, the amount of water that would eventually be needed to cope with expanding industry and the increase in the number of houses could not possibly have been visualised.
The whole thing is hopelessly and utterly out-of-date. Why should a local authority come to the House and ask for powers under an Act of 1885 when industry and the building of houses have taken a different shape to that existing at the time when the Act was put through? I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) that the time has come for a comprehensive survey of the resources, not only in the terms of how we use the water, but of how we conserve it and What we should do to provide additional conservation during the next two or three decades.
If anybody needs proof that we are at the breaking point with water supplies, the proof is in this circular. The Amendment has not been tabled in a lighthearted manner. It is a serious one.


It has been tabled without any antagonism towards the Manchester Ship Canal Company. Underlying the Amendment is one of the basic needs of the town, and I hope that the Government will seriously consider applying their minds to taking action to deal with this problem.

9.30 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I speak tonight as a Member representing a constituency traversed by the Manchester Ship Canal. I have listened carefully to the speeches and have noticed that they all have one thing in common—the condemnation of a system which results in the pollution of the canal, which, in turn, pollutes the air of the towns on the banks of the canal. I have heard people defending the Canal Company and others condemning it. I think of the company not as an impersonal entity but as a body of men who have known for years that the condition of the canal is deteriorating. I think of these people as men who pride themselves on being good husbands and fathers; I think of them as men who condemn cruelty to animals, who are pillars of the Church, but who have no collective social conscience whatsoever. They seem to be oblivious of the cruelty which is inflicted upon people by the omission of certain acts on their part.
I speak very strongly because I represent the town of Warrington, which has a number of industries which emit curious odours. They make detergents and chemicals, and it is necessary for us to exercise the greatest vigilance otherwise the owners of those factories, who generally live in the pure air of Cheshire, would become quite indifferent to the conditions in which people near their factories have to live. Added to this there is the pollution of the Manchester Ship Canal, which is a source of repeated complaints by my constituents.
It is a curious coincidence that tonight there is a meeting of the Warrington Council, at which the medical officer of health of Warrington is making a report. The Warrington Guardian of 22nd July says:
The report, to be presented to the Town Council on Tuesday, says that a notable feature of 1959 was the long, hot, dry spell during the summer months which resulted in

many foul smells from various stagnant waters in the town. Particularly offensive were the smells arising from Manchester Ship Canal and numerous complaints were received both of the smell and the blackening effect on metals of the hydrogen sulphide gas produced in the canal. The high concentration of gas was determined by the Water Department. The River Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal ', the doctor says, 'are two highly polluted water courses passing through the borough and there is urgent need for steps to be taken nationally to prevent the pollution of such water courses which result in offensive odours at any time when the flow of water is reduced and when hot weather encourages the production of obnoxious gases'.
The doctor goes on to mention the question of disease in the borough, saying:
The report states that the death rate of cancer of the lung and bronchus showed a marked increase during the year and is now the commonest form of death from cancer.
Week after week in Warrington we see big headlines in the local newspaper, such as
River Pollution Threatens Industrial Water Supplies.
That is the heading over a reader's letter, which says:
Warrington has two big open sewers running through the town—the Mersey and the Manchester Ship Canal. But these are typical of the area.
I am conscious of the fact that Warrington has the highest death rate from chronic bronchitis.
I am not for a moment suggesting that smell alone is responsible for these diseases. But in a town where respiratory disease is very common it is quite inhuman further to pollute the air. I am surprised that the Manchester Ship Canal Company, as employers of labour, should not have a greater sense of responsibility for these ordinary people, working in dirty, dusty factories, who cannot escape to Cheshire, and who have to live in a polluted atmosphere which is still further polluted by this filthy canal which has been called a sewer. We have heard about the dignity of this great waterway. about the cost to the country and the great service which it gives. But surely the Manchester Ship Canal Company must feel that for the canal to be called a sewer diminishes its dignity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) asks why the Minister of Housing and Local Government is not present—

Mr. Ellis Smith: The new Minister of Health is present.

Dr. Summerskill: May I say that I hope so.
Surely, a wealthy authority like the canal authority should have made representations to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. We in this House know that when we have a grievance we prod Ministers. We take deputations to Ministers and bring pressure to bear upon them. We do not sit back and say that this is our authority or someone else's authority, we say that the authority is there and we will see that the Ministers use it.
I should like to know whether on any occasion over the years, when the position has been deteriorating, the Company has taken a deputation to the Minister. I suspect that it has done nothing, because otherwise action would have been taken before now. I emphasise that I speak as the Member of Parliament for Warrington and a sufferer from the effects of the state of this canal. I hope that this debate will appeal to the social consciences of the members of the Canal Company.

9.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I think that the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) made my position clear tonight. The hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment declining to consider the Manchester Ship Canal Bill have made it evident during the last two-and-half hours that it is not really their intention to refuse leave for the Bill to proceed. Indeed, to do so would be rather nonsensical, because the Bill has gone through all its stages in another place and has come back to us for the final stages.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith) made it clear that he wished to use this discussion as an opportunity to ventilate once more—this is the second time—the very difficult and complex problems surrounding the northern side of the Trafford Park Estate at Manchester. I hope that at the end of my speech the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will decide not to press the Amendment. The hon. Member for Ardwick said that the Bill contained a

number of important and useful provisions which would be of great help to the Canal Company, and I do not think that anyone would wish that the Company should not have the powers contained in the Bill.
The second thing I wish to say relates to the speeches—including that of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill)—about the pollution of the canal. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is responsible for a whole galaxy of things and I never cease to wonder at the extent of his responsibilities. But, so far, he has not been made responsible, either by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or by Parliament, for looking after questions of atmospheric or river pollution. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is responsible in these matters. I am afraid I cannot give comprehensive replies to the many points which have been made about pollution of the canal. What I undertake, and undertake quite sincerely, is to bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government everything that has been said tonight, because I agree with hon. Members opposite that there is a very serious matter here to be looked into. I shall certainly see that he is made aware of what has been said.
Matters more directly within my province are those dealt with in other parts of the Amendment than that which refers to the effluents. I first come to what is really the crux of the matter. That is the prospects of the construction of a new bridge to replace the existing Barton Swing Bridge. Before I discuss that, however, may I say a word or two about the background against which this matter must be judged? As several hon. Members have reminded us, the new Barton high level bridge, which will carry the Stretford-Eccles Bypass across the canal is in an advanced state of construction. Completion is expected this year. It is estimated that the scheme will cost about £4 million and the Ministry of Transport makes a grant towards it of about £3·4 million.

Mr. J. T. Price: I should like to have this matter definitely confirmed before the hon. Gentleman goes


on. May I take it from the statement he has made that the Ministry has actually accepted full responsibility for tie 75 per cent. grant? My recollection of the negotiations which went on before tie inauguration of the building of the bridge was to the effect that the Minister would not commit himself and Lancashire County Council undertook the work originally without any specific guarantee from the Minister. If the Joint Parliamentary Secretary can tell me that tie Minister has actually accepted full responsibility for the 75 per cent. grant, I shall be interested to have that on the rocord.

Mr. Hay: I can hardly imagine that tie county authorities would have gone as far as they have done with the construction of this bridge without having some sort of assurance of that kind from my right hon. Friend.

Mr. J. T. Price: And they are financing it?

Mr. Hay: So far as I am aware, but I am speaking without any definite knowledge of that.
What effect is the new Barton high level bridge to have on the existing Barton Swing Bridge? The present bridge at the moment carries a mixture of all kinds of traffic. Some of it is through traffic from other parts of the country heading across the canal to South Lancashire. It also carries a great deal of local traffic composed of all types of vehicles crossing the canal. It carries a great deal of freight traffic, particularly to and from the Trafford Park Estate to towns on the north side, such as Bolton, Liverpool, Preston and so on. At present, all that traffic has to go over Barton Swing Bridge.
In 1954 a traffic census was taken. It showed that 11,000 vehicles a day and 2,900 cycles a day crossed the bridge. The most recent details I have are those for 1959 when a count was taken and 13,000 vehicles crossed the bridge. That is the extent of the problem that we have to consider. After the new high level bridge at Barton is opened, we are advised that we can expect that two of these mixed types of traffic now using tie swing bridge will divert to the new high level bridge. Those two types are, first, the great majority of the through

traffic coming from other parts of the country and heading up into Lancashire and, secondly, because of the connections and junctions formed to the southwest of Trafford Park, a lot of freight traffic from Trafford Park to north of the canal will also use the high level bridge.
I must be advised by experts and I am telling the House what my advice is. On the survey taken in 1959 we estimate that at the peak between 500 and 800 vehicles will be diverted to the new bridge. It may be that that is the order of the relief which the old Barton Bridge will be getting when the new bridge is opened.

Mr. Allaun: The hon. Gentleman has been saying that this will bring some relief to Barton Bridge. Probably he is much better informed on that than I am, but I wish to ask whether it will bring any relief at all to Trafford Bridge where there is this terrible congestion. So far as I can see, it will bring no relief.

Mr. Hay: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it will. There again, I have no particular information, but as far as I am aware it will not, because the only traffic using the Trafford Bridge is much more domestic than the traffic using the Barton Bridge.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon) asked about cyclists and what the effect might be upon cyclist traffic. In 1955, the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) made a suggestion that the Barton high level bridge might be so constructed as to allow for its use by cyclists and pedestrians. My right hon. Friend's Department studied this matter with great care and came to the conclusion, after studies on the spot, that the proposal would in fact involve an increase in the journey time of the ordinary cyclist going from Trafford Park Estate of 7½ to 12½ minutes. In addition, a cyclist would have to face a half-mile uphill gradient of one in thirty to get to the top of the high level bridge. This was compared with what was thought to be a one in four chance of being delayed at Barton Swing Bridge. The average delay measured at that time at the Barton Swing Bridge was calculated at about eight minutes. Many


people wait longer, but many wait less than that time. On that comparison we came to the conclusion that it would be better not to try to make provision for cyclists and pedestrians on the high level bridge, which they might use hardly at all. We may have been wrong about that; I do not know. I was not there at the time, but it is certainly now too late to change.
The next point is whether we should build a new bridge for the residual traffic which will continue to use Barton Swing Bridge when the new high level bridge is open. Many hon. Members have asked that the Minister of Transport should take charge of this problem and should make himself responsible for the building of a new bridge for the local traffic at Barton. I must make it cleat to the House that this is not my right hon. Friend's responsibility, for the reason that the road which goes across the present Barton Bridge is not a trunk road. The Minister of Transport is responsible by Act of Parliament only for trunk roads. They are his roads and he is 100 per cent. responsible for their maintenance.
Other roads in the country called classified roads are the responsibility of and are owned by the local highway authorities. We contribute to their maintenance and minor improvement expenses on varying scales, but they are local authority roads. Barton Bridge is one of them. This is therefore not a matter for my right hon. Friend to decide.
On the information which I have, and bearing in mind the many claims which we have on our limited funds for road improvements in this country, I am a little doubtful whether it will be possible to build a new bridge of the kind asked for in this debate for some time to come. We must remember that we already have an expensive scheme in building the high level bridge, and we think that that bridge will contribute some improvement at least—I put it no higher than that—for the traffic at present using Barton Swing Bridge. We shall have to see how it turns out, and whether the calculations and estimates prepared by the traffic engineers employed by our Ministry and by the county council responsible are found to be correct.

Mr. J. T. Price: This is an interesting argument about the line of Barton Bridge not being on the line of a trunk road. I accept that, for I am very familiar with the locations. But what of the line of the high level bridge? This is a road which has been constructed to link A.56, which is the Manchester—Chester Road, with A.6, which is the main north-south road up the west coast of England. Surely the argument which the Minister is adducing for not accepting responsibility for the one bridge also applies to the road which is being constructed to link A.56 with A.6.

Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Member has misunderstood my argument. I said that my right hon. Friend cannot at the moment be responsible for the roads in the neighbourhood of Weaste, where we are being asked to build a bridge. In the nature of things, therefore, he cannot of his own volition decide to build a bridge at Weaste. This is a matter for the local highways authority to put forward.
In the light of developments we will keep under very close review the need for any further bridges in this area. When I speak of further developments I mean specifically the experience which we shall have through the diversion of some traffic to the high level bridge and the general development which is scheduled to take place in this area and which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South—the housing development and the industrial development of Trafford Park Estate.
If the highways authorities in the area make a proposal to us we will, of course, consider it. I cannot forecast what our decision would be upon it, and the House would not expect me to give such a decision tonight, but we will certainly look at any proposal with this debate in mind and will bear in mind the points which have been so admirably made by the many hon. Members who have spoken.
May I come to the question whether it is possible to make some improvements in the arrangements for swinging the existing bridge? As the House has been told by a number of hon. Members, this question is governed by the Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1855. Section 33 contains a proviso which requires the bridge to be


kept closed at all times except when it is required to be open for the passage of vessels. It adds that it shall at such tines he kept open only for as long as shall be "reasonably necessary" for such passage, and it is the question of what is "reasonably necessary" which is so much in dispute between the Canal Company and the standing committee of which, I think, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. McCann) is chairman. Section 126, on the other hand, concerns the Barton Bridge more specifically, and this Section makes it a statutory offence to keep the bridge open for longer than ten minutes.
In the light of this statutory background, over the years various arrangements have been reached between the Company, on the one hand, and the various local interests, on the other hand. I am told that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has been very active in this matter since as long ago as 1936 and has done a great deal to try to bring these arrangements about.
The current arrangement dates from 1951. Under this the bridge is to be kept closed for what I believed, before the debate began, were eight periods on week-days, amounting to a total of two hours and forty-two minutes. I gather twat there is some dispute whether the statement of the Promoters on this point is quite correct. In addition, there are two periods on Saturdays amounting to thirty-five minutes in all and two periods on Sundays amounting to thirty minutes.
But there is a proviso in the arrangement that, irrespective of these restricted periods when the bridge must be kept closed, the bridge can be opened at any time for the passage of ocean-going Vessels. As several hon. Members have explained, Manchester docks thrive upon the large ocean-going vessels. That was one raison d'être for the canal—one reason for the Manchester Ship Canal being built.
I am glad to come to this point, because to my mind it shows how difficult it is to strike a balance in these matters. On the one hand, we have the very pressing needs of vehicles and foot traffic over Barton Swing Bridge; on the other, we have the quite legitimate and highly important needs of shipping which wants to use the docks at Manchester. This is not a tidal canal in the sense that

every ship must conform to the tides, but I am advised that the ships have to catch the tide at the estuary of the Mersey, and that adds to the complications and difficulties.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells rightly emphasised the importance to our export trade of the quick turn-round of ships. At a time when the shipping industry is facing so many difficulties, we want to be rather careful not to place additional impediments in its way. The hon. Member for Ardwick rightly stressed the importance of shipping to the great city to which he is so rightly proud to belong. None of us in the House would wish to do anything to hinder the continued development of that city. These are the considerations which we have in mind and this is the problem which we have to face.
I now come to the future position. I read for the first time today, as I think most hon. Members did, what the Company said in paragraph 6 of the statement in support of the Bill. It has already been read, so I will not read it again. The hon. Member for Eccles said that this wording means nothing. Although I am a lawyer, I am always inclined to believe that words mean what they say. What these words say, as I understand them, is that for the next six months there will be no change in the present arrangements for the opening of the bridge, but that they will be reviewed, not just by the company itself, but by the standing committee, in the light of the experience which we get from the movement of traffic on the new high level bridge.

Mr. Proctor: In my view, the paragraph is specifically designed to keep the power in the hands of the Canal Company to do just what it likes. The standing committee will not have to sanction it. The power will rest with the Canal Company to make such alterations as it desires. I would have been impressed if it was laid down that no alteration should be made without the company's consent. The paragraph is carefully worded. Mr. Lloyd George was an expert on this kind of thing. When one has something and tries to catch hold of it one finds that it is not there.

Mr. Hay: In those circumstances, I must read paragraph 6. It states:
After the new high level bridge is opened for traffic the Company will continue to operate the present arrangements at Barton for not less than six months until the Standing Committee referred to in paragraph 4 have had time to review the traffic arrangements in the light of experience of the new high level bridge.
The hon. Member may see some dark design in that. I do not. I think that it is straight-forward. According to the information which I have to answer this debate, what I have said is the position.

Mr. Proctor: It was not the company's intention to make any alteration originally, but that the same procedure should be followed for three months. There is no guarantee than any change will have to have the sanction of anyone besides the company.

Mr. Hay: The hon. Member may be very pessimistic. I do not think that his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale is so pessimistic. We will just have to see.
It has been suggested in the debate that somehow the Minister of Transport should intervene in this matter and call all the parties together to see if some more permanent arrangement could be hammered out. Frankly, I do not think that that is necessary at this stage. The hon. Member for Rochdale showed the competence and wide nature of the experience of the committee Which he heads and I believe that this is a matter for local decision, We in the Ministry of Transport stand ready to give any advice or assistance we can if it is genuinely required. In short, we shall take a benevolent interest in what happens about the future arrangements for the opening of the bridge.
In the moment or two which remain before ten o'clock may I say—

Mr. Ellis Smith: We can go on after ten o'clock.

Mr. Hay: I know, but I have reason to believe that the House as a whole wants to proceed with the business which was interrupted at seven o'clock. It may be that my speech has not given hon. Members opposite 100 per cent. satisfaction, but I hope that it has not been too disappointing.
We are not indifferent to the needs of this very important area. The fact alone that we are building the high level bridge, or contributing to the building of it, shows that we are interested. We will certainly give what help we can. I cannot promise tonight that we will build a new bridge to replace the old swing bridge. I will, however, promise, first, to consider very carefully any proposal which the highway authorities—

it being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Chichester-Clark.]

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

Mr. Hay: I was saying that I promise to consider carefully any proposal which is put to us by the local highway authorities. Secondly, I will bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government the remarks which have been made in this debate about the pollution of the canal. Thirdly, we stand ready to help the company and the local authorities to solve the problems of opening the present bridge if our help is asked for. I hope, therefore, that with these assurances, hon. Members opposite who have tabled the Amendment will decide to withdraw it.

Mr. Proctor: Will the hon. Gentleman consider my suggestion that an inquiry might be held into all these problems so that we can have expert advice concerning the bridges and all the other matters?

Mr. Hay: I remember the hon. Member making that suggestion. I thought at the time that this was probably not the sort of case in which an inquiry of the kind he had in mind would help us. The purpose of an inquiry, particularly if conducted by a committee, is usually to find out the facts. There is comparatively little dispute, I understand, about the facts. What is wanted is action of a certain kind. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] It may be for the Government or it may be for the local authorities


to take that kind of action, but it is not something upon which we need an inquiry.

Mr. Proctor: It has been suggested that several more bridges are required. A committee which considered the matter and reported would, I hope, come to the conclusion that it is necessary. To do nothing after this debate seems to me to be wrong.

Mr. Hay: I hope that it will not be the case that nothing is done. I hope that this debate has helped to clear the air—figuratively speaking, if not in fact—and that we shall all know a little more about the situation. I have certainly learned a great deal. I have seen the Barton Bridge, both the high level and the swing bridge, on a visit to the area, but I now know much more about it. I will certainly interest myself in it, as my predecessors have done.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it in cider now, Mr. Speaker, to return to the earlier question of disarmament?

Mr. Speaker: Not quite yet, because we have Questions to deal with concern-

ing the Manchester Ship Canal Bill. I did not know the desires of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), whether he now desires his Amendment to be put or whether he wishes to withdraw it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Having had the explanation that the Minister has given with regard to the main points that were made, the undertaking that he has given to keep a watchful eye on the effects of the new bridge with regard to relieving the old bridge and his undertaking about watching the position as housing development takes place in the Westhoughton and Wigan areas, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Bill considered accordingly.

Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) suspended; Bill to be read the.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Postponed Proceeding on Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, resumed.

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — DISARMAMENT

10.4 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing those of us who are anxious to return to the question of disarmament to do so. The whole House will be agreed that it would be quite wrong for us to be satisfied with the very short debate that we were able to have on this important matter before Private Business was taken. Although in the brilliant speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) a great many of the important issues were put, it would be quite wrong for the speech of the Minister of State to go unanswered. Many of his comments are of a kind that we on this side cannot accept.
I want to begin by making it clear that disarmament is not, and ought not to be, a party matter. In so far as the British Government delegates at the Disarmament Conference talks are putting forward a fighting campaign for disarmament, they will have the full backing of every Member of the House.
It is therefore with very great regret that I have to say that I am afraid that the Minister of State's explanation this evening as to why these talks have ended in confusion was too smooth and too superficial by half. We will all agree that when the Ten-Nation Disarmament Conference met early in this year with two plans in front of it, the Western proposals and the Eastern ones, it could be argued that both these sets of proposals were to some extent unsatisfactory. They were both too extreme, though in opposite directions. On the one hand, it could well be argued that the Soviet Union, in its proposals, was asking for too much too quickly, and therefore the possible charge that it was being unrealistic and that the proposals had been propaganda pro-

posals did lie against it. On the other hand, what the West offered was so little that it was doubtful whether it was, in fact, offering anything at all.
It is important to bear that in mind, because I think that is part of the explanation of some of the apparent propaganda which has been conducted from the Russian side. It is a tragedy that after all the discussions that went on among the Western nations before the conference opened, the proposals which were produced were such a mockery of a genuine offer of disarmament as to cast doubt from the very outset whether the Western nations were approaching this solemn and urgent question in the spirit which the General Assembly desired they should do when it debated this matter in September of last year.
I ask the House to consider for a moment, as the Minister of State did, these Western proposals. He said that, these proposals were not so bad, after all. Therefore, I suggest that we should examine them for a moment now, because I believe that they are the key to the failure of this stage of the disarmament talks. We must remember that Her Majesty's Government were a party to the preparatory talks as a result of which these proposals were drawn up, and, therefore, in the eyes of this House, this country and the world, the Government must bear its full share of responsibility for them.
The main starting point of disarmament in the Western plan consisted of the demand for prior notification of the launching of vehicles in outer space, and this was made the item, above all other items, which was given priority before any disarmament of any other kind took place at all. Yet everybody knows that it is in this field of outer space in which the Soviet Union has the lead. Therefore, from the very outset, the Western Plan struck what I might describe, to put it mildly, a tactically very unwise note by starting the disarmament talks by trying to curb the one field in which it could be said that the Eastern nations had the lead. This was violating the principle which the Minister of State himself and other delegates from the Western side supported time after time in speeches in the disarmament talks—the principle that all disarmament should


proceed on the basis that reductions from either side meant a parallel sacrifice and left a parallel security.
What is much more serious than that is the fact that this plan, if we examine it objectively and clearly, irrefutably demanded the establishment of far-reaching control without any disarmament of any reality at all. What it called for were so-called reductions in the manpower levels to 2½ million men for the Great Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union, a level of forces which, the Soviet Union pointed out, was higher than the manpower level she has in existence at the present time. And yet the agreement to accept those manpower ceilings was made dependent on the establishment of procedures for "initial and continuing verification".
That means simply this, before any disarmament could start at all or any real discussions on disarmament could start, the Western Powers were demanding the establishment of control procedules for vertification of existing manpower levels in the Soviet Union. They wore demanding the entree into the heart of the Soviet Union military secrets. It was, in fact, establishing licensed espionage and, as such, was absolutely bound to be rejected by the Soviet Union. There was not even the beginning of the basis on which disarmament could be discussed, because al sides had agreed on the formula, no control without disarmament, no disarmament without control.
Finally, we turn to stage two of the Western proposals, in which after a lot of studies, about verification of one sort and another, we come to actual measures of disarmament, and what are the measures of disarmament which the Western proposals put at stage two? First of all, the prohibition of the basing of weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Secondly, on site inspection of la inching sites—two fields in which the Soviet Union is known to have a superiority. Thirdly, aerial inspection against surprise attack, a field again in which we know the Soviet Union is very sensitive. It is this proposal put forward by President Eisenhower at the Geneva talks in 1955 as what he called the "curtain raiser" to disarmament, the test of Soviet sincerity, which led to the breakdown of the previous disarmament

talks, because we know that the Soviet Union will not accept aerial survey of the kind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Just a moment—without the beginning of genuine disarmament; because this is merely to accept U.2. flights. Of course it is. One thing which was made quite clear was—

Mr. John Hall: Mr. John Hall (Wycombe) rose—

Mrs. Castle: Let me finish this. I have a lot to say.
Aerial survey has its place in disarmament. The Soviet Union has admitted that, but it only has its place where evidence has been given of Western genuineness about disarmament, and there is no proof of Western genuineness about disarmament, when we are talking of manpower levels of 2½ million men, which is not disarmament by the Soviet Union, but which would mean for the Soviet Union rearmament.
Therefore, it is apparent to any objective person that we shall not get acceptance of aerial surveys by the Soviet Union in stage two of a disarmament plan which gives no disarmament of the kind which in the Soviet Union's eyes is proof of the genuineness of Western intentions. Therefore, it is quite clear to any objective observer—and many American commentators have said this; many American Democrats and others have said—that the Western proposals were a farce and could not possibly provide the basis of agreement. But the only answer that the Government have given is, "Look at the Russian proposals. They are totally unrealistic." I agree that they were, in the form in which they were put by Mr. Khrushchev in his initial suggestion of total disarmament within four years. It was a quite impossible programme to realise within that time limit.
At the same time Mr. Khrushchev, in his speech to the General Assembly last September, said to the assembled Powers, "This is our idea of how we should set about complete and rapid disarmament, but, if you do not want to go as quickly as that, there are other ways of showing your willingness by more gradual stages. If you want to go less quickly, why not go back to the Soviet proposals of 1955?"
He repeated that offer in September last year. These Soviet proposals of May, 1955, were, as we know, the Anglo-French proposals which were put forward by, among others, the British Government delegate. They were accepted by the Soviet Union on 10th May, 1955, with the addition of far more detailed headings for the establishment of a control system.
When the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said today "The Soviet Union showed no willingness to face control in the earlier stages," he must know that that is not so. According to the reports of the first part of the ten-nation talks—we have only had verbatim minutes of the first part; we have not yet seen the minutes of the second—those who go through those minutes carefully will see that Mr. Zorin was challenged in March or April this year, "Do you still stand by the Soviet control proposals of 1955?" He said, "Yes we do." If that is so, why do we not go back to those proposals which we had welcomed earlier?
Why not go back to our own plans of 1955? I say seriously to the House that our failure to do so is the second reason why profound cynicism and doubt have been spread in many quarters about the genuineness of Western intentions on disarmament. The burden of proof that the West is really in earnest this time about disarmament rests with us, because of the history of what happened in 1955.
I remember that in May this year, when we had a debate on foreign affairs, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Foreign Secretary and asked why, if they said that the Soviet proposals were unrealistic, the Western Powers did not revive the proposals which they themselves had put forward. These were comprehensive proposals, balancing nuclear disarmament and conventional disarmament under inspection and control. My right hon. Friend asked, "Why not go back to those proposals as the starting point for negotiations if you think the Soviet plans are unrealistic?" The Foreign Secretary brushed him aside with an astonishing phrase and said almost scornfully that he hoped that my right hon. Friend was not reviving "the old

1955 heresy". He added that the Soviet proposals would have meant the dismantling of N.A.T.O. without there being any kind of control. I do not think that in any debate on this subject there has been a greater travesty of the truth from the benches opposite.
If anybody cares to turn up the Blue Book of the disarmament talks it will be seen that the proposals put forward by Mr. Gromyko in May, 1955, contained detailed headings on control. It is not true to say that those proposals would have meant the dismantling of N.A.T.O., without control. What Mr. Gromyko suggested was the setting up of international control organs with an international staff. That staff was to have "unimpeded access to records" and "unimpeded access at all times to all objects of control." He suggested that the best way—

Mr. Ormsby Gore: That was at a later stage. In the first stage they did not have access to all the armaments which were to be controlled. That was after 50 per cent. of the disarmament had already taken place.

Mrs. Castle: Perhaps I might in reply to the hon. Gentleman ask him this question. If the Soviet proposals were so unsatisfactory, why was the Soviet change of attitude on 10th May, 1955, welcomed so glowingly by the Western delegates? They had challenged the Soviet Union to accept the Anglo-French proposals of 1954. The United States delegate said, "Come on, now; stop beating about the bush. Say, 'Yes' or 'No'." To everybody's surprise, the Soviet Union said, "Yes.".
What did Mr. Moch say to that? He said, "The whole thing looks too good to be true." What did the United States delegate say? He said," We have been gratified to find that the concepts which we have put forward over a considerable length of time have been accepted in large measure by the Soviet Union." What did the United Kingdom delegate say? He said that the Western proposals had now been "largely, and in some cases entirely, adopted by the Soviet Union." Mr. Nutting added, "We have made an advance that I never dreamed possible on Monday last."
What did the Soviet delegate say? He said, "Let us get down to it and discuss


your proposals." What did we do? We adjourned the conference. When it met again after the Geneva Summit talks, at which all that had happened was that President Eisenhower suggested that all we needed in the disarmament field was an aerial survey—a glorified mass U.2 reconnaissance, which he knew was unacceptable to the Soviet Union—what happend? The United States delegate got up and shocked the world—and shocked the British delegate, too, if the right hon. Gentleman had the honesty to admit it—by saying, that the United States Government claimed the right to reserve "all its pre-Geneva substantive positions." The Anglo-French proposals were withdrawn, and have remained withdrawn to this day, and that is a serious blot upon the disarmament record of the Western Powers.
It was because when the Soviet Union said "Yes" to the Anglo-French proposals the Western Powers ran away from them that there has been this deep doubt in the Soviet Union that if she did give way on some matter which she considered vital to her security, some aspect of control, she would not get any real disarmament in return. We know that site is spyminded—I happen to believe that she is pathologically spyminded—but we are dealing with realities and trying to make progress, and when one is trying to make progress one does not play upon the one anxiety which one knows will impede progress.
Whenever the Soviet Union is asked to accept some fundamental breakdown of the secrecy which she considers vital to her security, she is suspicious that if she does so the disarmament which she has been promised will not follow, as it did not follow in 1955. Why cannot we return to those proposals? If the Soviet acceptance of them was welcomed so warm-heartedly, what has changed to make us run away from those proposals to the farcical ones which we put forward in March this year?
The reasons are not technical ones about disarmament. They are political ones. Why is it that we will not go back to the manpower ceilings we said we should have? The Western proposals then said that the ceilings for Russia and the United States should be "at most"—those were the words used—

1½million men. The Soviet Union is willing to go back to those proposals. The relative proportion for France would be about 650,000 men. One of the reasons why we dare not go back to the Anglo-French proposals is that France has made it clear that she wants at least 1 million men to wage her war in Algeria. That is one of the political facts which stand between us and the solution to the technical problems of disarmament.
The United States will not go back to 1½ million men because she needs at least 2 million to man the 250 N.A.T.O. bases, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South pointed out earlier. We will not go back to the Anglo-French proposals because, if we were to make any substantial progress in disarmament, we would very soon be brought up against our other ally, West Germany.
One of the most alarming political obstacles to disarmament was expressed by the West German Foreign Minister the other day, when talking to the Bundestag. He said that the West German Government was opposed to any disarmament programme which would lead to disengagement within a limited European area. Yet somebody some time has to get down to the brass tacks of implementing that section of our proposals which relate to the creation of zones of arms limitation in Europe and in other countries which may be affected.
Finally, the real political obstacle to disarmament, which we shall fall over very quickly if we really get down to this tricky subject, is recognition of the Peking Government. Very early on in disarmament talks one must bring in other Powers. One cannot get beyond the early stages of a disarmament discussion among the nations already round the table before one knows whether the rest of the world will come in. If one brings in the rest of the world it is no good bringing in Chiang Kai-shek. It does not matter what happens on Formosa—it can under-write treaties as much as it likes; the real signature which matters is that of Peking.
The Foreign Secretary was challenged again yesterday about when the West is to get down to solving this problem and when the British Government will take the initiative in getting the United States


to realise that it cannot continue to live like an ostrich with its head buried in the sand, pretending that 600 million people do not exist. We cannot have disarmament without the recognition by the United States of the existence of the Peking Government. The Western Powers are betraying the possibilities of disarmament as long as, rather than face this political obstacle, they go on piling up Polaris missiles in Europe instead.
I suggest that if one examines carefully, as some of us have done, all the evidence and all the plans that we have had before us in such detail over the past few weeks, one will find quite clearly that the obstacles to disarmament at the moment are not technical but political. The technical solutions are there and could be built upon.
It is a favourite trick of the Western nations to keep returning to the theme that control and inspection are the key to disarmament. Of course they are. But then they add that the Soviet Union has never get down to the question of control. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, "hear."] That is not true. Anybody who says, "hear, hear" has not read the new Soviet proposals that were proposed after the adjournment for the Summit talks which never took place.
It is quite obvious from the evidence that on paper at any rate—and I am not putting it any higher than that, for we are all talking about paper offers on either side—the Soviet Union is prepared to accept sweeping measures of control provided it gets evidence and proof of serious progress towards disarmament.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: May I draw the hon. Lady's attention to a particular feature of the Soviet plan? It refers to the control arrangements and the wording is:
The control organisation will have the right to inspect without hindrance all enterprises, plants, factories and shipyards, previously engaged wholly or in part in the production of rockets, aircraft, surface warships, submarines…
and so on. I asked Mr. Zorin what was the significance of the words "previously engaged." I asked whether they would allow the investigation of other factories not previously engaged, but perhaps clandestine factories which

were making these arms. We had no satisfactory reply. I therefore say to the hon. Lady that although these provisions are superficially fairly attractive, in certain particulars they are not sufficient and that when challenged to explain them the Soviet Government refused to do so.

Mrs. Castle: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Western Powers spent the whole of the first section of these disarmament talks playing on a new formula by M. Moch, a formula which was just as unrealistic as, he complains, the words "previously engaged" are. M. Moch's formula was that in order to get control of reductions of any kind, one must not only have the verification of the reductions themselves, but be able to get a verification of the situation before the reductions were made. His formula was X plus A, X being the existing situation and A being the reduction, presumably leaving one with Y, or something of that kind to represent what is left.
Clearly, if it is made the definition of control that the existing situation must be established before any disarmament of any kind can take place, that is asking the Soviet Union to give the Western Powers access to all her military secrets before disarmament takes place.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: We have categorically stated on behalf of the United Kingdom that we are prepared to accept precisely that control.

Mrs. Castle: Perhaps the British Government are, but we are now talking about what is a basis acceptable to both sides. It is quite obvious that the Soviet Union has been wrestling with what is a very difficult problem—which comes first, the hen or the egg; which comes first, control or reductions. If we start by saying to the Soviet Union that we will reduce our arms to a figure higher than we already have, provided that they allow us full verification of the military facts of their existing situation—

Mr. Ormsby Gore: I must ask the hon. Lady to keep somewhere near the facts. The facts are as stated by Mr. Khrushchev himself, that the present strength of the Soviet armed forces is 3·6 million men. We say that they should


reduce in the first instance to 2·5 million. That is not fixing a force level miles from the existing figures. That is 1,100,000 below their existing figures.

Mrs. Castle: That is not the figure that Mi. Zorin gave in the ten-nation talks. Mr. Zorin's complaint was the one which I am now making, namely, that the figure of 2½ million is higher than the one towards which the Soviet Union is now moving with the further reductions which she is now making. She has announced a reduction of 1·2 million and says that she is already in process of making that reduction. I am not taking her word for it, but merely using the arguments which were used in what was supposed to be an attempt to reach agreement. Mt. Zorin said, "When our current reductions have gone through, we shall have a figure lower than 2½ million; you are asking us for access to the military secrets of the Soviet Union before you will accept even the manpower figures which you yourselves were prepared to accept in May, 1954."
I challenge the right hon. Gentleman. Why not go back to the proposals of May, 1954? Why not go back to those manpower figures?

Mr. Ormsby Gore: The control arrangements in the 1955 proposals are no., satisfactory, and in any case I could also tell the hon. Lady that the Soviet Union, in these present negotiations, has made it quite clear that it regards the 1955 proposals as partial measures which are now unacceptable.

Mrs. Castle: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to re-read Mr Khrushchev's speech to the General Assembly last September, when he said, in effect:
If you do not want to go as fast, or as far as this, we will start with the 1955 proposals.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: The proposals which we have put forward are very much more far-reaching than those in 1955.

Mrs. Castle: Do you call 2½ million instead of LI million more far-reaching? Of course it is not. The manpower figures alone show an increase.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: Mr. Ormsby Goreindicated dissent.

Mrs. Castle: It is no good you shaking your head.

The Deputy-Speaker: Order. I think that it would be as well to address the Chair.

Mrs. Castle: There is a serious problem here. I suggest that the real answer is the establishment of confidence which will enable some of the secrecy to be abandoned. I do not believe the Western proposals are of a kind to engender confidence, any more than the record of what happened in 1955 engenders confidence. One must start by proving that there are grounds for believing that the Western Powers want disarmament. Until that point has been reached, control could start with measures against surprise attack to prevent the concentration of forces, which would be part of any mobilisation effort, or any preparatory effort for the launching of a sudden war.
This was put forward by Mr. Gromyko in 1955 and is in the first stage of the new Soviet plan. It suggests that there should be established
control at airfields and ports to insure that these were not being used for military purposes",
and that the destruction of missile launching sites should be carried out under the supervision of the International Control Organisation. There should be international control over the destruction of rocket weapons and the rest of it.
If, instead of trying to force down the throat of the Soviet Union a formula which is unacceptable, we should think out methods of control which would guarantee us in the interim period against surprise attack. We could then begin our disarmament reductions and create the atmosphere from which we could go on to the next stages.

Mr. John Hall: I am trying to follow the hon. Lady's argument on this serious subject. Can she tell me how the type of controls she is now describing would work unless one were able to have a comprehensive inspection of the territories of Russia as a whole? Can she tell me also what it is to which the Russians object in open inspection when the Western Powers are willing to allow precisely the same facilities as we are asking for from the Soviet Union?

Mrs. Castle: The Soviet Union would reply to that, as she has replied in the ten-nation talks, that she does not believe that there is a certainty—I will put it that way—that if she allowed this control and this inspection, that she would, in return for dropping her guard, get any real disarmament.

Mr. Hall: Russia would get the same information as we would get.

Mrs. Castle: This is a matter for the decision of any sovereign State. It has the right to say that if it is abandoning security—what it considers to be its security—it is going to be certain that it will get something in return. The only answer that the West has put forward is President Eisenhower's sudden switch from the Western proposals in 1955 to the aerial survey ones.
Now that we are resuming our disarmament talks, the only proposals that we have put forward are M. Moch's formula that there must be verification of the armaments, manpower and the rest of it in the Soviet Union before we even get manpower ceilings of 2½ million. That is no very dramatic proof that if the Soviet Union dropped her guard she would not once again be faced with the sort of walk out on actual disarmament with which she has, in words, been promised.
We all agree that it is a very great pity that the Soviet Union walked out of the ten-nation talks. I deplore that. I deplore any hindrance to the discussion of disarmament which might lead to progress, but I must say that some of the speeches made by the Western delegates when the Soviet Union walked out were rather unhelpful. Incidentally, it is interesting to see that when in the sessions of 27th and 28th June they wanted the world to know what had happened, the record of the proceedings was got out the same evening, whereas we are still waiting for the records of the talks which led up to that breakdown. It is rather strange that the one set of documents could be rushed out in time while we are still waiting for the others.
Of course, some wild things were said. M. Moch for instance, proceeded to give the Western answer to the walk-out.

He said that Russia was not willing to accept neutralisation of all bases
fixed or mobile, land, air or floating.
That is not true. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is not true, because the Soviet proposals of 2nd June covered in their first stage the destruction of submarines and surface naval carriers, the destruction of missiles and planes, the inspection of launching sites for rockets and all the things which M. Moch said that the Soviet Union would not entertain.

Mr. Ormsby Gore: There was nothing in the first stage of the proposals about the elimination of bases on Soviet territory, and I think that for the benefit of the House we must all recognise that M. Moch has been a Socialist for far longer than the hon. Lady and knows a great deal more about the disarmament negotiations than she does.

Mrs. Castle: I stand by my point and I do not care where the answers came from—from whatever side they came. It really is not any answer to say that M. Moch is a Socialist. I am concerned with what he says and not with what label he carries, because this is more important than party or political labels of any kind.
I repeat—and the right hon. Gentleman has not denied it—that in the first stage of the Soviet document the Russians called for the destruction of all means of delivering nuclear weapons, including strategic and tactical missiles, pilotless planes of all types, military aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons; surface naval vessels that can be used as carriers of nuclear weapons; submarines of all classes and types and all artillery systems.
I should have thought that one of the most serious of all nuclear bases at the moment was the floating base, the submarine, and one which we ought to be glad to get rid of because it is a field in which we have often said that the Soviet Union has predominance. I regret that the Soviet Union walked out of the talks before the American proposals were produced, but I do not think that if they had stayed the new American proposals would have enabled any greater agreement to be reached, because they contain the same fundamental flaw that the control formula demanded


from the Soviet Union is the one which is unacceptable until some disarmament has taken place. The new American proposals repeat once again that they must have verification of a forces level of 2½ million men as a first step before they will even consider the reduction to 2·1 million men. That is control without disarmament, and we cannot get away from it.
I believe that the Soviet Union's walkout was a political step, because disarmament had got deeply involved with the wider political problems. The problem which the Soviet Union was encountering was that of her relationships with China. We have to face the fact that unless we get the Soviet relationship with China clearly in our minds and take stops to meet the problem which this creates for her, we cannot make any further progress with disarmament. Clearly, what is going to happen is that the Soviet Union will go to the General Assembly and ask for a new disarmament body to be set up. I think it is true that we shall not get any further with disarmament with the present composition of the Disarmament Conference.
If we have the five Powers on both sides acting as a monolithic bloc, we shall have the same eternal second reading debates of each other's proposals which never really test the sincerity of either side. Clearly, we need a new disarmament body containing China and also India among its membership. It should have a neutral chairman and a form of procedure which would enable the conference to move from the second reading to the committee stage. I ask the Government to support such a suggestion at the disarmament debates in the General Assembly.
This will bring us at once against the question of the recognition of Peking. Are the Government going to refuse to accede to the demand for the composition of a new disarmament conference because of this act of political blindness? A though the Soviet Union may be pathological in its attitude to security it is matched by the pathological condition of America over the recognition of China. Surely it is time we had an independent British initiative about this. I agree that in the ten-nation talks we have had the five Eastern Powers acting as a monolithic bloc. They have been

gibed at by the Western delegates for echoing each other's words. But the West has been a monolithic bloc as well. Cannot we move into a situation in which the United Kingdom would take an independent initiative? We have been told—I do not know whether this is true—that the British delegate has been anxious to move more quickly than the American delegate. I have heard it said in complimentary terms of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not think the American proposals were satisfactory. He has told us earlier that he thought some of the Soviet Union objections to the American proposals regarding foreign bases, for example, were valid. But he never said so in the Ten-Nation talks. The delegates have been acting as two monolithic blocs, and we must get away from that if progress is to be made.
We want a United Kingdom initiative which will recognise this, because I beg this House to realise this: whatever may be the faults of Mr. Khrushchev, he has one great merit in this situation. He is fighting an ideological battle on the Eastern front which alone contains the possibility of the salvation of the world. Do not let us underestimate the fact that from the very moment when the Soviet Union broke with Stalinism and, Mr. Khrushchev for the first time breaking with orthodox Marxism, said that another war would mean the destruction of all States, not merely capitalist ones, a ray of hope came into the world. In spite of all the things Which Mr. Khrushchev has done and written in the last few months, the stupid loud-mouthed and unnecessary insults he has hurled about, the truth is that 'he has been steadfastly consistent in what he has been saying during his tour of the People's Democracies and his arguments with China. He has reiterated the theme that it is possible to negotiate with the capitalist States to prevent a third world war and that—what is more—we must prevent a third world war.
Never let us forget that he is under intensive ideological pressures, not only from China but from Mr. Suslov and other right-wingers in his own country. Unless we back him up, we may live to regret it when he has given way to someone much more implacable, leaving us with no alternative but to go on with the arms race, which Mr. Kennedy of the


United States seems anxious to pursue even before he becomes President, building into the programme of the Republican Party of the United States the demand that there must be no "price ceiling on security," a demand for the equipment of European States with the Polaris missile. If that makes hon. Members laugh, it does not make me laugh.
It is time this country started to insist on the West negotiating seriously on some of the issues which must be solved if we are to have the survival of this more enlightened Soviet policy. We must solve the problem of Berlin, because, until we do, there will be no real progress with disarmament. I make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. Why not, as one possible solution of this burning question, propose that Berlin should become the capital of the United Nations? The Soviet Union has suggested that Berlin should become an international city. We have objected to that on the ground of the inadequate security it offers to West Berlin. Why not let Berlin become the capital of the United Nations? The people of Berlin have a right to security and to freedom. This we have promised them, and that we would protect it, but not at the expense of driving us into a situation which would endanger the security of us all.
Let us build in all our Government actions on all the hopeful peaceful factors in the world. Let us do everything in our power, for instance, to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We should welcome the great speech of the Prime Minister of Ghana the other day. He called for the creation of a non-nuclear third force in Africa, with the rejection of foreign bases in that territory and the rejection of the policy of taking either side in the cold war in which we are now plunged back again. The West really must face the problem of foreign bases in the disarmament talks. Instead there are moves to increase the number of foreign bases. We hear that Western Germany is to seek foreign bases in either Portugal or Angola. If she does, Mr. Khrushchev will seek bases in Africa and Latin America. Two people can play at that game and the only goal that road leads to is the inevitability of a third world war. Let us therefore recognise the

helpful things and build on them, even if it means Britain being the sole voice among the Western Powers to demand it.
In this troubled period through which we are passing, there has been one ray of hope. Perhaps the most encouraging symbol which we have had at this dangerous time has been the picture of Ghanaian troops under a British General going to the defence of European lives against the Congolese. There we have in embryo the new world society struggling to be born out of danger and violence. Let us not fall back on the smug generalities of the cold war. Let us look for hope and have the courage to build on it.

10.56 p.m.

Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett: The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) began her speech by saying that she had a great deal to say, and she proved as good as her word. I agreed at any rate with her opening sentence in which she expressed gratitude to the Chair for allowing one or two more speeches on this great issue of disarmament, because I am sure that on all sides of the House we are agreed that disarmament is the greatest problem calling for solution in the world today.
Yet I doubt whether the cause of disarmament, if I may say so to the hon. Lady, is very much furthered by recriminations over the past, especially in matters of detail and especially by people who were not present at the discussions. To form a judgment of these highly complex matters by studying the pages of a blue book is as difficult and as risky as to form an opinion on the findings of a court if one has not been present to see and hear the witnesses oneself.
I could not possibly accept the hon. Lady's extreme denigration of the Western proposals. I agree at once that they were not nearly as good as the British proposals which were tabled last September, but the hon. Lady sometimes seems to overlook the fact that we are one of a group of nations and that we must take into consideration the views of those with whom we are associating. I remind her that the American Colonies gained their independence long before Ghana and that they are just as entitled to have their own views.
The hon. Lady developed at some length the Soviet case for resisting inspection of any sort. We all know that they resist it, but what she did not explain was the reason. There is no need to be reticent about it; it is a perfectly understandable reason. The Soviet Government, at the sacrifice of a great deal of liberty and at the cost of a great deal of inconvenience to their inhabitants, are able to maintain a secrecy within their borders such as is unknown in the Western countries. It is quite unnecessary for Mr. Khrushchev to send an agent to find out where the rocket sites are in this country. All he has to do is to look at the newspapers and to see where the Aldermaston marchers go. That has always been one of the difficulties. We must be frank about this. One of the difficulties is that if the Soviet Government accept inspection they are making a real concession, whereas if we accept it we are making nothing like the same concession.
I want to look at this question from a rather broader standpoint for a few moments. As the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) said, it would be very hard to imagine a greater contrast between the atmosphere in which we are holding this debate and the atmosphere in which we debated the same subject four months age. Then we had high hopes. My right hon. Friend said that the chances the a of disarmament seemed better than at any other time since the war. I would go further and say that they seemed better than at any other time within living memory.
We must face the fact that since then we have had a very great set-back. No useful purpose would be served in pretending otherwise. And yet I would not agree with those who say that the initial stages of the ten-Power meeting were a complete failure or a complete waste of time. I agree with my right hon. Friend that in the circumstances, the discussions then were bound to take the form of a general debate on disarmament. What everybody hoped was that out of the Summit Conference would come a series of directives which would form the basis of more detailed negotiations when the Conference resumed. The lack of procedure and the

lack of a standing chairman has been criticised, but it did not matter very much at that stage of the Conference. It would have mattered a great deal afterwards had the Conference gone on to try to negotiate an agreement.
There was, however, one disturbing feature about those talks to which I should like to refer and which so far I have not seen mentioned in public. I refer to the ease with which some of the delegations, though not, I am glad to say, the British delegation, were persuaded into pursuing hares of a technical nature. One example, which has been referred to today, is the idea of a satellite filled with nuclear explosives which, by pressing a button, somebody would bring down upon his adversary's territory. At this time of night, I do not propose to have a long technical digression. I would, however, say that that concept is at present far nearer to the realm of science fiction than to reality.
It is, I understand, a fact that if such a satellite were to be brought down with any accuracy, the rocket which fired it into space would have to be ten thousand times as heavy as the satellite itself. Although nothing is impossible, and we know that these terrible things are brought about, it is not likely to be produced overnight or in the immediate future. In any event, there are much easier and cheaper methods of achieving the same object.
Who is it who starts these hares? That is something about which I feel disturbed. It can presumably only be the military or the scientific advisers of some of the delegations. If that is so, those men are doing a great disservice to peace. They should be exposed, if necessary, and removed from public employment.
If it comes to that, there is an even worse feature of the present negotiations. I refer to the way in which so many statesmen seem grievously alarmed at the prospect of a sudden, devastating nuclear attack. I want to say a word about this, because there is great danger in negotiating under the belief that one is threatened with instant peril. Fear is a bad counsellor at the best of times and negotiations concluded under the duress of fear lead only to agreements which are unlikely to be lasting.
The suggestion, as I understand it, is that a potential aggressor despairing of a cheap victory might be tempted to risk everything in an all-out nuclear attack. If one thinks of this for a moment, one realises how unlikely it is. The only conceivable object of such an attack would be the destruction of the power to retaliate. That would involve, if we imagine Russia attacking the West, the sudden and simultaneous destruction of, I suppose, at least 500 objectives and possibly 1,000.
In order that it should be simultaneous, it would have to be brought about by missiles. Because of their limited accuracy at long ranges, they would have to have thermonuclear charges. One has only to consider the risks that that would bring to the continent that carried out the attack. I am not in a position to assess it, but I am certain that I am right in saying that the consequences of radioactivity and fall-out throughout the whole world, including the aggressor's country, would be so serious that it is not a project likely to be undertaken.

Mr. Dan Jones: Is it not just possible the hon. and gallant Gentleman is missing the point? Can he conceive what would have happened if Hitler had possessed the hydrogen bomb in 1945?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman there, but that was at the end of a great war when Hitler was faced with destruction. What we are considering now is somebody starting in the middle of peace an attack of this nature.
I would say that the conclusion which I have reached—I have given a good deal of thought to this—is that this operation is something which is not on, given a reasonable degree of vigilance, such as exists, and a reasonable degree of dispersion, such as exists. I think this is of considerable importance for the future of disarmament negotiations, because I believe one of the things we should do is to make a much calmer assessment of the case for disarmament before negotions are resumed. After all, the case is a strong one; it is an overwhelming case: it is a case which gains nothing by exaggeration and it may lose a great deal by distortion.
At the same time it is, of course, the political will which is the dominating

factor, and it is, therefore, pertinent, although, I dare say, quite in vain, to ask what it was that prompted the Russians to walk out of the Geneva Conference, and, indeed, if it comes to that, what it was that determined Mr. Khrushchev's words and actions at the abortive Summit Conference. I confess I find it impossible to accept Mr. Khrushchev's own explanations at their face value. It may be true, as was hinted by the hon. Lady, that he was under great pressure to find excuses for a return to the more rigid forms of cold war practised in the days of Stalin. If that is so—I have no idea whether it is so or not—I think it is very disturbing for two reasons.
To begin with, that fact must have been known, so one would suppose, to the American State Department. That being so, one would have expected that the utmost care would have been taken to see he was given no possible excuse for taking the line he did take. It is also disturbing for the future because one wonders what form and what shape of Government we may see in Russia in the years ahead.
On the other hand, I have even heard it said that all Mr. Khrushchev's previous gestures, all his friendliness, were so much play acting and that his sole intention was to lead some of the peace-loving nations, such as the people of this country, into believing they were about to move into easier times and then dash their hopes, and that thereby he hoped to drive a wedge between ourselves and some of our allies. If so, he grievously miscalculated. However. I do not accept that view for a moment myself. I do not accept it because I do not believe that men of the experience and the astuteness of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or the astuteness of General de Gaulle, and the other Heads of State who had had preliminary talks with Mr. Khrushchev would have been deceived over that period.
I thought before the negotiations began, and I have often said, that the best contribution those of us who are anxious to see the cause of disarmament furthered could make, but having no responsibility for the negotiations ourselves, would be to place the best possible construction on the words and actions of the statesmen with whom we disagree. In other words, that we should


do the thing which Mr. Speaker invites the Sovereign to do on our behalf at the beginning of each Parliament. I still think that is a sound piece of advice, but I am bound to admit that there are times when it is extremely hard to carry out.
I do not agree at all with the criticisms made by the hon. Lady and to a very mach lesser extent by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South—the criticisms of the Government in these affairs. No one did more to create the right atmosphere for these discussions to begin than the Prime Minister. The events that have destroyed that atmosphere have been wholly outside Britain's control. Since then, I suggest to the House, no single action has been better calculated to get us back on to the right lines again than the Prime Minister's recent letter to Mr. Khrushchev. What a remarkable letter that was. It is the latest of a series of letters which I believe will find their place in the history of modern diplomacy.
I agree, however, with the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South and also, if I interpret him correctly, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, that during this pause we can usefully consider improvements both in the corn-position and machinery of the Disarmament Conference. I think that we all agree that when the Conference is resumed it should be resumed in a closer association with United Nations machinery, and I remind the House that that original proposal to remove the Ten-Power Conference from the orbit of the United Nations came from Russia and not from us. It was a mistake, and we should go back to the United Nations.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it would he very desirable, if it could be achieved, to have a permanent neutral chairman, but who is he to be? Although it would be a great departure from precedent, the only suggestion that I can make is that the Secretary-General himself should take the chair. To do that involves quite a new concept of the functions of a Secretary-General of these great international bodies, but he has the impartiality and he certainly has the secretariat. Whether he has the time or not is a different matter.
On the other hand, I think that he might make himself responsible for the periodic and fairly frequent issue of factual and impartial reports on the proceedings of the Conference. We all know the great difficulty that there is about reporting these conferences. It is unnecessary for me to enlarge upon these difficulties now, they have been discussed so often in the House. One solution is to get an independent rapporteur, and who more suitable than the Secretary-General?
As to membership, it is of course true that sooner or later, if we are ever to have disarmament, China must be brought into the negotiations. I do not think that anyone denies that.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Front Bench denied it yesterday.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The hon. Member is entirely mistaken. My Front Bench has never denied anything of the sort.

Mr. Rankin: Yesterday afternoon the Foreign Secretary was questioned on this matter. He admitted, of course, to being in favour. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has done that, and so have the Government—regularly since they came to power—but they have done nothing about it at the United Nations.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not agree in the least with the hon. Member. I said, and I repeat, that everybody agrees that sooner or later China must be brought into these negotiations.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: What does the hon. and gallant Member mean by "everybody"?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: All nations and all parties to the negotiations.

Mr. Silverman: Does the hon. and gallant Member seriously advance to the House that the American State Department, President Eisenhower, or either of the Presidential candidates, are in favour of this? Does he exclude them from the category of "everybody"?

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I do not exclude them. If the hon. Member will study stage two of the Western Plan he will see that this is dealt with.

Mr. Silverman: I am more interested in stage three.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: What I said was that it is agreed that sooner or later China must be brought in. The practical difficulty is to decide when.
I would say to our American friends that they must realise that this is a river that they have to cross if we are ever to get a disarmament agreement. I do not think anybody would deny that. What advantage is gained, if any, by trying to put off the crossing is a matter on which I have the greatest misgivings. Indeed, I think we must be frank when speaking to America about this and say that the willingness of the Americans to agree on this matter is bound sooner or later to be taken as a test of their sincerity in regard to disarmament altogether.
Arising from an interjection from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I very much hope that the rival Presidential candidates in the United States will refrain from taking up a rigid position on this matter until after their election is over, because, although the cause of disarmament is not dead, it is, in my judgment, certainly dormant until after the Presidential elections.
I think that all we can say now is that this debate will have served a useful purpose if it shows the world that at any rate the people of Britain and Her Majesty's Government are in deadly earnest in their determination to secure a disarmament treaty.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: There were many points in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) with which I agreed. I am sure that there is a greater interest in disarmament in this country than there has been for many years. There is a great deal of interest in the subject outside the House. Before the House meets again after the Recess very important bodies, such as the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party, at its conference, will decide what is to be their future policy. I believe that the Labour Party policy will be more logical, clearer and more justifiable if the Labour Party and the Trades Union

Congress go out for unilateral disarmament.
Before the House meets again the Labour Party and the Trades Union Congress may find themselves pledged to a new kind of policy. I, for one, fervently hope that that will come about. I do not believe there can be any halfway house; one has either to accept the arms race or one or one has to come out for a bold measure of unilateral disarmament.
There has been too much of a tendency in this debate to place the whole blame for the increase in internationaltension—as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said—on Russia and Mr. Khrushchev. In his speech the Minister of State seemed to assume that the trouble began at the Summit Conference. But there were events leading to the Summit Conference. Where was the turning-point when Mr. Khrushchev became less conciliatory and the attitude of Russia hardened? It was undoubtedly the incident of the U2. That was the turning-point when certain elements in the Kremlin seemed to challenge Mr. Khrushchev's old position, and then we found that the Russian attitude hardened.
If the letter which the Prime Minister has sent to Mr. Khrushchev is likely to have an effect in bridging the gulf, then it is justified, but, as I have said in a Motion in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, the blame cannot be laid upon one side alone.
[That this House would welcome an announcement from the Prime Minister that, following his letter to Mr. Khrushchev, he proposes to write a letter to President Eisenhower informing him that a considerable number of people in Great Britain are exceedingly doubtful, since the incident of the U.2, whether the flights of United States aircraft over or near Russian territory are justified; that they believe that United States policy has also contributed to the increase in world tension; and would welcome some assurance that the United States of America is prepared to adopt a foreign policy more likely to lead to understanding with Russia, to bring China into the United Nations and end the fear that the nuclear arms race may lead to a third world war which could destroy civilisation.]
It is time that the Prime Minister decided to send a letter to the White House pointing out that there are dangers in American policy and that, at the present time, it is as much a cause of increased tension as anything that has come out of the Kremlin.
I am very anxious to know where we are going from here. I have followed the policy of the Prime Minister with great interest ever since he began his new approach to the Soviet Union. When he first took office he delivered a very interesting speech over the radio on a Sunday. He said that the step that we should adopt was a non-aggression pact—indeed, he called it a solemn non-aggression pact. That was to be the first step towards a more friendly relationship with Russia.
What happened? He went to Moscow, and I heard him deliver many interesting speeches there, including those which were more adulatory of Mr. Khrushchev than I have ever delivered in this House. I heard him make a speech at the British Embassy in Moscow in which he 'talked of Mr. Khrushchev as the great leader of one of the greatest constructive efforts in history, saying that it was no mirage that was before Russia but that Russia was pointing the way to the Promised Land. What happened? When he met Mr. Khrushchev in Moscow, Mr. Khrushchev looked up what the Prime Minister had said in his broadcast speech, and the Prime Minister was surprised to find that he was faced with his own proposal for a non-aggression pact. He then discovered all kinds of reasons for retreating from such a pact.
That has been the history of disarmament conferences. The Russians have accepted proposal after proposal which has then become a subject of argument, with the result that we are in the present state in which nobody knows what is to happen next. Are we to continue with the arms race?
It is more than 10 years since the Labour Government embarked upon its rearmament programme. The argument put forward then was that in three years we would be able to talk to the Russians from a position of strength. But since then Russia has made enormous technological advances both in rocketry and in the development of the hydrogen bomb. It cannot be denied by the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East that if this goes on another 10 years there is no hope of the West being in a pose ion of superiority.
Yet we are acting as though we were the in-can at the tail of the American dog. We know that the first explanation

of the disappearance of the U2 was a lie. The Americans first of all sent round a story that it had been lost somewhere in the wilds of Pakistan. Then they had to admit that it had been shot down over Sverdlovsk. After that incident, I wonder at the credulity of hon. Members who assume, as the Prime Minister did, that the American version of the plane that was lost in the Arctic must be accepted. If the American State Department could lie about the U2 it could lie about the RB-47. I wonder why it has been accepted in this House that the Russian version of this incident is wrong and the American version is right. I believe, with The Times, in its leading article on the flight of the RB-47, that
What can be said with confidence is that no weather information or mapping details can possibly be worth the risk. If such were indeed the RB-47's mission, then those who sent her on it were either so unimaginative as not to be trusted with such authority or irresponsible.
I believe that those who sent the RB-47 were irresponsible in authorising another flight into that area near Russian territory at this moment of international tension, which brings me to the problem of the American bases here.
Obviously, the Prime Minister is not satisfied with the situation, otherwise he would not be seeking a new agreement with President Eisenhower. I remember well the warning uttered by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when he was moving the Motion of censure on the Labour Government in 1951. He pointed out the enormous risks and dangers that we had undertaken as a result of having American bases here. This was before the hydrogen bomb and the international ballistic missile. The right hon. Gentleman, in his graphic way, said that we had incurred enormous risks because if only a fraction of the atomic bombs that were supposed to be in the possession of Russia fell on this country we would experience what we had never known before. Ten years after that we find ourselves and the Russians in possession of these rockets and the hydrogen bomb, and we face the possibility that this country could be wiped out within a few hours.
In the last two defence debates a word frequently used was "suicide". and the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon,


North-East was right in saying that Russia would have every reason to fear before starting a hydrogen bomb attack on this country. But the same applies the other way, and I cannot see how we can seriously argue, when, as The Times said, the authorities who are in charge of the American bases are irresponsible, that the continuation of the bases in East Anglia and Oxfordshire is in the interests of the 50 million people in this country. We should be welcoming the whole idea of the American bases being taken out of this country and being sent back to America. Last week, presumably trying to help the Prime Minister out of his difficulties, we had an American general saying that the British people would feel a greater sense of relief if they knew that bombing planes were able to fly over Russian territory than they would if the missiles were somewhere in Montana or Wyoming. There is a growing feeling in this country that the American bases do not protect us at all. I hope that the time will come when the Opposition Front Bench will say unequivocally that we stand for the removal of the American bases and for a position of neutrality.
The case of Berlin has been mentioned. What is to happen about Berlin? Does anyone think that Berlin can be saved by any measure of nuclear warfare in Germany? What would happen if the Russian headquarters were moved into Berlin? Would we bomb East Berlin or West Berlin? I fail to see how we can possibly remain in Berlin if it comes to a showdown. The sensible solution is for Berlin to be made a free city. We should stop talking nonsense and imagining that we can protect Berlin by threats of nuclear warfare on the Continent.
There is a growing realisation in this country—and, I hope, in Western Europe—that the time has come for an entirely new re-thinking on the whole of the international relationships in the nuclear age. We cannot possibly defend this country by the hydrogen bomb. The hydrogen bomb is a weapon of suicide. We can go on talking as much as we like about continuing the arms race, but it can only bring us into greater peril.
I rejoice that outside this country and in the democratic organisations in the country there is now a demand for a new policy, a demand for the end of the entire concept of strategy based on the hydrogen bomb, and which realises that there is only one way in which we can save the people from the horrors of nuclear war and that is by a policy of neutrality, a policy of retreat from the strategy which has obsessed the country during the last ten years.
Mention has been made of President de Gaulle and him manpower plans. Our manpower would be better deployed on building up our economy and abolishing poverty and creating a higher standard of living. I have no doubt that that is the policy of Mr. Khrushchev. Those who have followed his arguments in the last few years are aware that those arguments are fundamentally sound. It is absolutely essential in the interests of the U.S.S.R. to put into industry, into 'housing and into creating a higher standard of living in Russia the immense energy which is now being wasted on armaments.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Does the hon. Member think that there is any possibility of Russia's embarking on a policy of unilateral disarmament?

Mr. Hughes: Russia began unilateral disarmament when she unilaterally decided to stop hydrogen bomb tests, receiving no response from the West. Whatever Russia decides, that is not our point of view. We would be safer by unilateral disarmament than we would be by proceeding with the policy which leads straight to national suicide.

Mr. Gower: If we would be safer, would Russia be safer also?

Mr. Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman goes on he will soon become a pacifist. He is beginning to realise the logic of my argument. I am not pro-Russian. I am not pro-American. I am a humanitarian.
The demand is coming from humanity in all the countries of the world—East and West—that the time has come for an end to this policy of the arms race. Sooner or later that demand will find an expression in politics in this country which no party and no Government will be able to ignore.

Orders of the Day — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN AGREEMENT

11.35 p.m.

Mr. James Watts: My intervention in the curious proceedings which help back benchers to air their views in the House is not concerned with disarmament. I want to discuss a question which has exercised my mind, that of the compensation which is being given to British subjects who have lost their property in Egypt following on the Suez campaign.
It is well known that directly after the Suez venture was finished the police entered various houses, and in the case about which I am talking, the police firmly, but I am bound to admit without violence, there and then deported the family. They were given 10 minutes to leave. All their possessions had to be left behind. The Foreign Secretary knows the name of the family which asked for my help. I do not propose to make any names public in this debate, but I wish to use this example to put forward a general appeal to the Government to try to speed up the object of tie agreement which was made by the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), on behalf of the British Government with the Egyptian Government in 1959.
The object of that agreement was to King justice to British subjects who had suffered loss. I admit that many families have been given back their properties, both real and moveable, which were sequestrated, but as they are not allowed to sell these assets and take the money out of the country, except for a small proportion which I will deal with later, this return has no convertible value.
At present they may remove £E5,000 per family, and I was told by officials in tie Foreign Office that this sum may be raised to £E5,000 for each individual. My submission to the House is that the Government should press for British subjects to be allowed to remove all their property and take it out intact.
I now come to the process by which parsons whose property has been nationalised can secure compensation. This must be done by a claim duly submitted through the Foreign Claims

Corporation, and the money from which these claims are to be paid, which includes claims for any damage to returned requisitioned property or for any losses—because not all the movables were returned, or the property was damaged—will come from the £27½ million hard cash which the agreement got from the Egyptian Government.
The Minister has been kind enough to come down to the House and has had to mess about all day waiting for this question of mine to be raised. No doubt my right hon. Friend will tell us—and it is my information also—that £45 million of British assets have been nationalised, and that about £30 million worth of damage has been done to sequestrated property.
It is very interesting to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT Of 16th May, 1957, the following words by the Foreign Secretary referring to blocked sterling assets at that time in England. He said:
The existing No. 1 Account, of course, remains blocked. Removal or modification of the restrictions must naturally depend upon satisfactory arrangements covering all financial claims against Egypt."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 584.]
None the less, after the agreement which was presented to the House in March, 1959, Cmnd. 639, these blocked sterling balances were released although the grievances remained and still remain. I believe that these balances amounted to £108 million for which, of course, we had only received £27½ million in return. It is, of course, true that interim payments are now being made under an Order in Council No. 1291 and a greater proportion of the total claim are given to people who have small claims and who are poor people than to the rich ones.
None the, less, if my information which I submit about the total loss is true, there will be a large difference, or to use the official term, "fall out" between the total collective claim in compensation for nationalised assets and for damage to returned property which was requisitioned and the £27½ million which we have at our disposal in hard cash.
I therefore base my hopes that justice will be done on the Prime Minister's statement in the House on 16th March,


1959, which I will quote. My hon. Friend said:
While we will not here and now pledge ourselves to make any fixed addition to the total of £27½ million, as has been suggested in the debate, I can say now that the Government will watch how this works out and will play their part in reaching a settlement which will be reasonable and fair, and we do not exclude a further contribution from public funds. But, as I am sure the House will agree, while we must wait for precise calculations, for the final settlement, we must try to deal with any hardships and gaps that arise between now and a final settlement. But this point is worth remembering. Any general undertaking, such as that asked for in some quarters, given by Her Majesty's Government before agreement was reached, that we would stand behind and pay in full all British claims, would certainly not have resulted in a satisfactory agreement."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th March, 1959; Vol. 602, c. 150.]
The passage which I have quoted was shown to me by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and his kindness in the matter, together with the help that I have received from the Foreign Secretary and from all the officials at the Foreign Office, leads me to believe that the Government are determined to see that justice is done. But I would like it done speedily. Three and a half years have already gone by since the other events which I have described took place.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) used one sentence during his speech which I apologise for quoting in his absence from the Chamber. He said that the case for disarmament was overwhelming. That was an important statement from one versed in armaments, whose life has been built up in the training for war. Whether he practised the art I do not know. Yet he admitted that the case we are seeking to present is overwhelming.
That immediately prompts the question, if the case is overwhelming, why go on making armaments and increasing them? From whatever point of view we regard it, I think there is complete agreement with the claim made by the hon. and gallant Member. The economic case is strong, the moral case is strong, and so is the social case. Frequently we have debated the delinquent, the problem child of today, and I think that

very often when we are lamenting the delinquency of children we forget the part that we as adults have played over the last 40 or 50 years in influencing those children. Men of 40 and 50 years of age, right from the time of their birth, have known nothing but war, the preparation for war and the aftermath of war. They have been taught violence and reared in a State which believes in violence, despite the fact that the case for doing away with the arms which produce the violence is overwhelming.
These young folk have had no chance to develop in the type of society which would produce the kind of men and women which we ought to be producing in increasing numbers. The policies of the Government have contributed to the presence of many of the things which we deplore. I wish to examine briefly the moral aspect of the matter. The other day the Prime Minister, when dealing with the questions which followed the announcement of the text of his letter to Mr. Khrushchev, said that, after all, we all carried on spying. To me it was a confession of moral degredation that the Prime Minister should say to the world that we all engaged spies and that others did the same. It was a statement that we engage in a practice which we regard as dishonourable when we apply it to the individual.
No one likes to be called a spy. Even in this House we try to avoid the word "spy" by referring to "intelligence". Now we are calling it "reconnaissance". Not so long ago, and since I have been a Member of the House, when we discussed the appropriate Estimates and asked the Government how much was spent on intelligence work, they more or less denied that such work existed. We never got the figure. I ask again tonight: how much are we spending on spying, intelligence, reconnaissance—whichever word we use—the cold, brutal word or the euphemisms we use to conceal the real significance of what is taking place? The fact that we are now openly confessing to this kind of thing is a sign of moral degradation. That is one of the penalties we face because in practice we refuse to recognise that the case for disarmament is overwhelming.
I do not want to look at this problem of armaments merely in its physical aspects, in the number of men who could


or should be engaged and the weapons which are used, and so on. In the argument which proceeded between my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the right hon. Gentleman as to the number of troops that would be allowed by agreements that were entered into or were about to be entered it to, I recollect that we had been offered the number of 600,000, yet last week we discovered that we could not enlist, at the very most, 180,000.

Mr. George Wigg: My hon. Friend has got his arithmetic mixed. The 600,000 refers to all three arms of the Services; 180,000 refers to the Army.

Mr. Rankin: O.K. I do not think my figures are mixed up and I shall be glad to know whether or not, even with the three different Services, we shall reach the 600,000 which have been offered.
I want to look at the attitude of mind which should lead to peace rather than the physical aspects of the problems wench will lead to war unless we are very careful. I want to direct the attention of the House to the Motion on the Order Paper in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and other hon. Members. There are some forty-five names to it, and I believe that the number will grow during the next day or two. That Motion seeks to direct attention to the fact that, in the view of many of us, the Prime Minister has made an unfortunate change in his attitude.
It seems to us that before the Summit talks he was trying to bring the two sides together. He was trying to act as the arbiter between Russia and America. I thought that a very helpful thing to do, but the letter he read from the Dispatch Box last week and the Note he sent to the Soviet Government seem to indicate that he is no longer trying to act as a pacifier; as one who will try to remove the grievances, discontents and dangers which exist between America and Russia; but now is acting as an individual it who, unfortunately, has taken sides.
He has come down definitely on the side of the American Government. I want to look at one or two of the things he said in his reply to the Soviet Note. He said.
…clearly…the United States aircraft in question was never less than about 30 miles from Soviet land territory."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th July, 1960; Vol. 626, c. 252.]

What was the evidence on which he said that? I submit that there is no evidence to enable the Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of this country, to make such a statement. It may be that we shall be given some evidence which will justify what he said. So far none has been offered.
Moreover, nowadays distance is not the primary consideration. We are dealing with machines which travel at 600 m.p.h., and time as well as distance is a factor in the danger which can result. A distance of 30 miles means three minutes from the coast of another country.
This leads to many other questions. Why was the machine there at all? What was it doing? General White has said that it was there in order to give us a certain amount of courage. If that were the case, why were its movements kept secret from us? How can we possibly take courage from something of which we are totally unaware? When these facts were revealed, why were they then denied? Why were these movements called merely weather missions? According to General White, the U2 and RB-47 flights were intended to fortify us with the assurance that America was behind us. If so, why hide them from us and, when they wore discovered, why deny that they had ever taken place? I emphasise a point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): The hon. Member refers to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I wondered whether there was any Member on the Opposition Front Bench.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Where is the Prime Minister?

Mr. Rankin: I am glad to note the right hon. Gentleman's interest in my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that he did not show the same interest when I referred to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: Surely the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that this is the day of back bench Members and we do not want to be troubled by Front Bench Members taking too much time in the debate. We want


to enjoy one of the historic rights of back bench Members.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) will take it from me that when we discuss London housing we hope that the Minister of Housing and Local Government will be here.

Mr. Rankin: Before the pow-wow started I was referring to the dangers of aircraft visiting the shores of another country. [Interruption.] That is putting it euphemistically, which I hope will please the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Teeling).
My right hon. Friend asked whether we would feel completely undisturbed if Russian aircraft were spotted 30 miles off the British coast. Would the American Government be so indifferent if a Russian 'plane were observed 30 miles from the coastline of the United States? That is the other aspect. That is the point of view of the other fellow which the Government side feel it so difficult to accept. We must look at the situation from that point of view if the real purpose of the Government is to bring peace, or help to bring peace, to the world and prevent the outbreak of war between America and Russia.
We have got to try to look at the situation from the point of view of the other fellow and ask ourselves how we would feel if such things were happening to us. That is what our Motion seeks to put before the House. We say that if there is a case to be presented against Russia, there is a case that can be presented against America. We believe that United States policy has also contributed to the increase in world tension, not merely in the sense of what she has created in war potential; but in what she is doing to cause suspicion in the minds of other nations.
I hope that when the Minister of State replies, he will assure us that the United States of America, with whom we are in close alliance, is prepared, in the words of the Motion,
to adopt a foreign policy more likely to lead to understanding with Russia, to bring China into the United Nations and end the fear that the nuclear arms race may lead to a third world war which could destroy civilisation.

12.3 a.m.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. John Profumo): I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not reply directly to his speech. I felt that you, Mr. Speaker, and the House would forgive me if I intervened to reply for a moment or two to the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) about the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement.
It can, of course, be argued that the financial agreement which we made was wrong, but I would remind my hon. Friend of some of the advantages. First, it was an essential step—

Mr. Rankin: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is politely telling us that he does not mean to reply to the debate on disarmament which we have just had?

Mr. Profumo: I was not being even as polite as that. I was asking the House whether it would permit me to reply to a speech on a different subject which requires an answer. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already made a speech. I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Govan said on the subject of disarmament, and I did not think that he added anything to the subject which needs a reply from me at this stage. If the House decides to go back to the matter later, my colleague or I will be present at any time that the House sees fit. I felt that I should be permitted very shortly to reply to a speech on another subject which is of great importance.

Mr. Wigg: Before the right hon. Gentleman makes a reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts), may I ask him if he realises that he did not put all the story? In pleading with the Government to accept their responsibility in connection with the Suez situation, he ought to remember the very considerable number of British ex-officers who were persuaded to go out to Suez and the very considerable number of them who, when they came back, were left in a position of hardship. The only effective rôle which the Government undertook was to collect from them Income Tax and pay it over to Nasser.


If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make his reply to his hon. Friend now, it is a little unfair, because I certainly wanted to add something to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moss Side said.

Mr. Profumo: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and I am in the hands of the House, if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) wishes to say something more on this subject. I did not realise that. I bought that we were going to debate on another subject, and I wanted just to say a word in reply to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: This is all my fault. I wanted, for the convenience of the House. to group the topics. I was mistaken about the intention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin). I thought he was going to speak on another topic. It is probably for the convenience of the House that those who wish to speak on compensation and Egyptian matters should speak now. If that is the intention of the hen. Member for Dudley, I will call him now.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. George Wigg: I shall not detain the House very long. Ever since Suez I have done my best to plead in this House the case of these ex-officers who went out to Suez, many of them resigning their commissions and taking reduced rates of pay to do their duty as they saw it. Many of them were imprisoned by Nasser. Many of them had the patriotism to recognise that it was inevitable that they should be left behind in Suez and that no warning could in fact be given. Many of them suffered from ill health.
At the time when the Government made their announcement, to which the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) referred, I raised in the Huse the question of compensation to those officers. The Prime Minister was kind enough to say that he would see me privately, which he did.
I was very sorry, indeed, I did not get more support from hon. Gentlemen apposite, particularly those who were vociferous in support of the Suez operation. However, as a result of this, a

very considerable number of highly patriotic ex-officers not only suffered great financial loss, but permanent impairment of their health, many of them to the extent that they could not hold again or get jobs of responsibility comparable with the jabs they had in the Suez base and had to give up.
As I say, it is an astonishing fact, and I would have thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would have hidden their heads in shame when realising that the one thing the Government did do was to collect from these officers Income Tax they owed to President Nasser, and that the Conservative Government became Nasser's tax collector. Whenever hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about Suez, they ought Ito remember that fact. I hope that hon. Gentlemen within my hearing tonight, whenever they go to the constituencies and want to get a few cheers when speaking about the records of some of my hon. Friends about Suez,. will remember the function performed by the Conservatice Administration, which was to collect Income Tax for President Nasser. I have no doubt that they did it very effectively indeed [Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member will look it up in HANSARD. I have raised the matter in the House before. and it is on the record.
We did not get satisfaction for these men. Many of them have emigrated. The hon. Member for Moss Side has every right to make a speech on the subject, but now that we have heard from the hon. Member let us hear from the Government also, and not only about the £27½ million. Let us hear what the Government have done for the British officers who did their duty, even if the Government did not do theirs.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House gives the right hon. Gentleman leave in the circumstances. Mr. Profumo.

12.10 a.m.

Mr. Profumo: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for his contribution, made with what I recognise is the great sincerity with which he speaks on the matter. I hope that he will not think I am trying to run away from this problem, because I recognise that it is a very important one. I am in a difficulty. This is basically a matter for the War Office, and I


wanted to try to reply to the general problem, in which I happen to know, from the Foreign Office point of view, some of these ex-officers have considerable interest. In so far as I can answer that side of the problem of these ex-officers, I should like to take a little of the time of the House to do so. I should like the hon. Member for Dudley to know that the specific matter which he has raised, although it is not within my purview, is a matter which the Government, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and my right hon. and learned Friend consider most seriously. If the hon. Member does not feel that he has had any satisfaction, I am sure that he will "have a go" again—and when he does "have a go" he really has a go—and no doubt my right hon. Friend will take into consideration what he has said tonight. Perhaps, therefore, I shall be acquitted of any discourtesy to the hon. Member in saying that that is not a matter which is within my purview.
The Anglo-Egyptian Agreement touches all people who had an interest in the past in Egypt, and it is a matter which is exercising the continuing interest of Her Majesty's Government. It may be of assistance if I can go back and take some of the points which my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side raised. It can be argued that the financial agreement was wrong and that it was wrong of us to have made it, but I ought to remind the House of some of the advantages which we gained out of it.
It was, first, an essential step in putting our relations with Egypt on to a proper footing once again. It is serving our wide interests in the Middle East and at the same time it is very much in the interest of British people who had financial interest in Egypt. Owners of sequestrated property can now have their property back, and, indeed, are getting it. Funds have been secured for compensation for the owners of property in Egypt. Compensation, when it comes in, is in sterling, and this is of considerable value.
It was a compromise, but a compromise accepted by Her Majesty's Government with their eyes wide open and accepted by this House as in the best interests of both British claimants and

the country as a whole. We had a full debate on the matter, in which both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister took part, and it was thoroughly aired. I will not waste the time of the House on that debate. Hon. and right hon. Members can look it up in HANSARD.
It can be argued that it was foolish—as my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side argued, though he used a politer word—to release the sterling balances at all. This was done as part of the Agreement. We would not have obtained that Agreement if we had not undertaken to realise the balances. It will be seen that Article II sets out that the Agreement was not to be valid unless we release the sterling balances. With respect to my hon. Friend, it is not accurate to say that the release of £108 million in sterling balances secured only £27½million in compensation. We also obtained the release and return of sequestrated property, which is a tremendously important consideration.

Mr. Watts: But it cannot be sold or taken out. It is frozen. If it cannot be taken out, it does not retain its value.

Mr. Profumo: I shall be coming to that point in a moment. It can be argued that the Agreement is not being quickly enough honoured or is not being implemented quickly enough, but I assure the House that everything possible is being done to get things moving as fast as possible. This depends partly on the Egyptians. The section of the Foreign Office which deals with British property in Egypt maintains regular contact with claimants and at its head, Sir George Rendel, to whose tireless energy I am glad to pay tribute, sees representatives of claimants every single week. My hon. Friend will be glad to know how closely those who are looking after the interests of his friends are associated with the Foreign Office. Sir George has recently been in Cairo where he has had discussions with the Egyptian authorities. I hope that this will lead to further improvement in the handling of these cases at that end. Recently I have myself been studying what can be done to help the Foreign Compensation Commission to deal even more rapidly with numerous claims now coming to it which it is having to consider. One can argue that it is—

Mr. Wigg: I gather that a senior official of the Foreign Office regularly sees the representatives of the claimants. Does he see representatives of the Suez contractors' employees' association? If so, when did he last see them?

Mr. Profumo: Without notice, I cannot say the exact people wham he sees, but there is an association of claimants loosely formed together, and they see Sir Geogre Rendel more or less every week.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that the ex-officers have formed an association. They lost their kit. They were promised compensation. What I suspect is that the representatives of property have been seen but the representatives of the ex-officers have never been seen at all.

Mr. Profumo: The hon. Gentleman is back on the point that he raised earlier. At the moment, I can deal only with the conditions under which the Anglo-Egyptian financial agreement is being worked out. That is the responsibility of the Foreign Office, and it is believed that Sir George Rendel sees the representatives of the claimants who come under the financial agreement, but he does not see the military people.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that a very considerable number of these officers who were serving came out as civilians. They lost their money and their kit. It is true that the War Office did the best it could, but the Treasury was sitting on its shoulder and the War Office was not as generous as it would have been if it had been given a free hand. It is disquieting to hear that Sir George Rendel sees the representatives of property but never the representatives of the ex-officers.

Mr. Profumo: There is absolutely no reason why anybody who has an interest should not see Sir George Rendel. My hon. Friend has, I think, already seen him, and I have put many other hon. Members directly in touch with Sir George. Insofar as any of these ex-officers may have financial interests in the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement, they are perfectly entitled to see Sir George, and I am sure that some of their representatives see him. But if the hon. Member feels that some of his friends are being left out of an interesting liaison, I should

be glad to see that they are put in touch with Sir George. However, I think he will probably find that it would be more appropriate if they were to see representatives of the War Office. I will look at the matter; I am anxious to see whether there are any stones which can be turned to make the system work better.
One can argue—my hon. Friend did—that it is not much good having one's property returned if one cannot sell it and then take the money out of Egypt. There is nothing to prevent somebody selling his property. The trouble arises over the fact that normally Egyptian exchange control regulations permit non-resident aliens to transfer from Egypt only the income on their property and assets in Egypt plus £5,000 per head of family. These regulations were in existence long before our agreement was reached, and they apply not only to the British. They apply to all non-resident aliens. Our financial agreement has improved on this because it includes a provision under which British claimants can go further in that they are at liberty to transfer any jewellery and effects which have been sequestrated. There has been some difficulty over the interpretation of a point of the agreement, whether the £5,000 was per head of the family or for each person. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there are now good prospects that these difficulties will shortly be overcome.
Again, one can argue that the £27½ million will not be anything like enough to compensate with. I think it is too soon just now to be able to come to any such conclusion. I do not know where my hon. Friend got his figures. For instance, some of the biggest Egyptian claims have still not been assessed, and the claims for the damaged sequestrated property have hardly started to come in at all. So it really is premature, to say the least of it, to predict at this stage the size of any shortfall or, as my hon. Friend called it, "fallout" which there might be between assessed claims and the total funds available.
At all events I was glad that he recalled the statement that was made by the Prime Minister on 16th March last year. I am well aware that he would like me to go further than this tonight, and no doubt other hon. Members


would, too. I am sorry to have to disappoint them, but I am not prepared to stick my neck out any further than it is.

Mr. Wigg: If the right hon. Gentleman does stick his neck out he will not become Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Profumo: There is just a fear that something strange might happen, and I hope that the hon. Member will bear with me. At least the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stands as a beacon of hope to faint hearts. It can be argued that the interim payments are not quite enough, or that the ratio of payments is unfair, as my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Watts: No, no.

Mr. Profumo: The Order in Council spelling it out was laid before Parliament and the principle of the interim payment order was discussed in general with representatives of the claimants beforehand. The whole idea of an interim payment was to avoid hardship as far as we could. That is why payments have been graduated as they are. There is no reason to think that the ratio of interim payments will necessarily bear any relation to the final distribution when the time comes.
All these things can be argued—perhaps with some force, but none the less the Government have gone to considerable lengths hitherto never done in order to try to see that justice is done and is done as quickly as possible. In addition, we have re-established diplo-

matic relations with Egypt. We again have a mission in Cairo and Egypt has a mission in London. This must be the way in which we can repair our relations, and as we do so the people my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have in mind are bound to begin to benefit.
Our relations with Egypt are, I am glad to say, already better, and I will stick my neck out to the extent of saying that they are improving. I hope that what I have said will show that this matter is causing continuing consideration on the part of the Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary asked me at the outset to try to keep personal touch with and watch over this matter so that there is a Minister in the Foreign Office who tries to follow this through. If any hon. Member wishes at any time to come to me about this matter, I guarantee to give his problem first-hand consideration, for it is in our minds to try to see how speedily we can solve this problem and get to the stage where we can make a final distribution to all those people who have suffered so much.

Mr. Wigg: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that he could not stick his neck out and add anything to what the Prime Minister said. Will he give the House an assurance that the Prime Minister's still stands in its entirety?

Mr. Profumo: Certainly I can give that undertaking.

Orders of the Day — PRISONERS (PUNISHMENT)

12.24 a.m.

Mr. Marcus Lipton: I was hoping to expose the callous indifference of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to housing despite the housing needs of many thousands of London citizens who regard him, quite rightly, as Public Enemy No. 1. A number of my London colleagues, I hope, will have a few words to say later about the misery and heartaches suffered by so many people in London, including my own constituents, as a result of the present Government's attitude towards the housing problem in the Metropolis.
However, this will be my only opportunity for a very long time to spotlight the appalling iniquities of the present system of solitary confinement in Her Majesty's prisons. I begin by reading a letter that I had from a prisoner in Wandsworth, William Eugene Gallagher. This is the letter, the publication of which the prisoner was not permitted by the Home Office to authorise. It seems to have been written in the early part of March this year.

"Dear Sir,

As a member of your constituency I am writing to you in the hope that you will be able to help me in this unfair and unjust position in which I find myself.

I am serving 4 years imprisonment here, Sir, and feel that although I am a prisoner I am, or rather should be, still entitled to justice and to a hearing before being punished for an entirely imaginary crime. I firmly believe Sir that the Governor of this prison is far exceeding his powers and venting his personal dislike towards me.

This is the predicament I am in, Sir, On 24th Dec., 1959, I was taken from the prison workshop and put into solitary confinement. The following day, 25th Dec., I was seen by the Governor and told I was on Rule 36 and that I was a bad influence an the rest of the 1,500 inmates. I do not complain of this, sir, although it is a lot of rot, and I am still serving my time whether it is in the main prison or in segregation. What my grievance is lies in the interpretation of this Rule 36. Allow me to quote it to you in part:—

'If at any time for the good order of the prison the governor deems it necessary that a prisoner shall not work in association with others, he may arrange for that prisoner to work temporarily in a cell.'

Let me point out sir that in no part whatsoever does in state that the prisoner shall forfeit his privileges as I have had to do, such as follows—Being refused to converse with anyone under the threat of being put on report,

all my film shows and stage shows have been stopped, in fact, all my privileges. That is, sir, the reason for asking your help. I have petitioned the Home Secretary, but the answer I got was that he saw no reason to intervene, which, of course I didn't ask him to do, so the reply was quite irrevelant to my question, which was for interpretation of Rule 36.

Hoping you will be able to give this question your attention in the very near future,

Yours respectfully,

W. E. Gallagher."

I sent that letter to the Home Office, and in order to ensure accuracy of the record I will read the letter I received on 30th March from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, who has been good enough to come here tonight to deal with this matter.
You sent me on 14th March the enclosed letter from William Eugene Gallagher, a prisoner in Wandsworth prison.
Gallagher has been made subject to the provisions of Rule 36 of the Prison Rules, which enables a prisoner to be removed from work in association with others if this seems to be in the interests of good order and discipline, or in the interests of the prisoner himself. Gallagher complains he has also been removed from the privilege of associating with other prisoners in other ways, for example, at concerts or film shows; and that as Rule 36 says nothing about these privileges it is illegal for him to be denied them. This is mistaken.
Privileges such as attendance at film shows or concerts or classes in association with other prisoners are discretionary privileges which the governor of a prison may grant or withhold according to the facilities available at that prison and the suitability of the individual prisoner for them.
The Prison Rules provide that in the normal course every prisoner shall be required to work, and that as far as practicable his work shall be spent in associated labour outside his cell. Rule 36 permits an exception to be made to this rule. Gallagher was placed under the provisions of Rule 36 because of his subversive activities in prison; and the Governor has found it necessary as well to prevent him from associating with other prisoners on such occasions as concerts or film shows, so as to prevent him from continuing his undesirable actions. This is a matter which must be left to the discretion of the Governor and in respect of which the Home Secretary would not be justified in issuing any special directions.

Those are the two letters which I wanted to have published so that the public generally could know the kind of thing which is going on.

Gallagher was not given permission to authorise the publication of his letter to me, although he made it quite clear when I saw him in Wandsworth Prison that he had no objection to the full facts being disclosed.

Mr. Albert Evans: Do I understand my hon. Friend to be telling the House that a letter from a prisoner to his Member of Parliament may not be published without the consent of the governor of the prison?

Mr. Lipton: I do not want to dwell too much on that point, because there is an even more important consideration which I want to stress.
When I asked the prisoner to authorise publication, that letter, as all letters to prisoners, was intercepted, and I had this further letter dated 26th May from the right hon. Gentleman:
The Governor of Wandsworth has forwarded to the Prison Commissioners for instructions the letter which you wrote on 23rd May to No. 6790 W. R. Gallagher, a prisoner in Wandsworth prison, as in the enclosed copy.
The reason that the Governor has submitted the letter for instructions is that prisoners are not permitted to send out from prisons matter intended for insertion in the press or to participate in any attempt to stimulate public agitation about matters other than the prisoners own conviction and sentence. This is a long-standing rule necessary for the preservation of good order and discipline in prisons, and the Home Secretary could not countenance any departure from it. He has directed that the prisoner shall be given the letter but it follows that the prisoner will not be permitted, during his sentence at least, to comply with the request to authorise publication.
If you would like any other information about the matter which is the subject of the prisoner's complaint I shall be very glad to try to supply it, and the Home Secretary or I will be very ready to answer any points you may care to raise in Parliament.
I asked a Question about the matter on 14th July, but I will not bother the House by reading it in detail. I merely wanted to get further information on this prisoner, who had been kept in solitary confinement from 24th December, 1959, to 21st April, 1960. The right hon. Gentleman gave me, in effect, the same kind of reply as is contained in the letter which I have just read.
I mention those preliminary details to show that there is something unsatisfactory about the present system. What I consider to be the most unsatisfactory feature about the present system is that prisoners are put into solitary confinement without being given details of the charge on which they are regarded as being sufficiently dangerous as to require their being put into solitary confinement.

That strikes me as a negation of all the principle of justice and morality.
In the House on 14th July, after being asked about the general practice of solitary confinement, realising that the present state of affairs was unsatisfactory, the Home Secretary said that he was to have the practice reviewed by the Prison Commission. For reasons which I shall adduce, I do not think that that will meet the purpose.
As a result of the Question I asked, I was given permission to interview Gallagher and another prisoner, whose name I will mention in a moment, in Wandsworth Prison, and I spent about two hours there on 18th July. I saw the governor. I saw the punishment cells, or the solitary confinement cells. I saw William Gallagher, and the point that impressed me most—and it was referred to in the first letter he wrote to me—was that he still maintained that he did not know on what charge he had been sentenced to solitary confinement by the Governor. He confirmed that he was taken from his usual place of work on 24th December, the day before Christmas. He said that the governor came down to the segregation landing on 25th December and told him:
You are now on Rule 36.
Gallagher asked why, and the reply he received was:
You are a subversive and bad influence on the whole prison.
Gallagher told me that he still did not know what wrong, or what breach of the rules, he had committed. He did not know then, and he still does not know, nor does his friend who is serving a sentence of imprisonment in the same prison. He said that he had no hearing, and that no charge or accusations were made against them so that they could answer them.
The rules relating to solitary confinement require that the prisoner is kept in his cell for 23 hours a day and then taken on exercise for one hour a day, but he felt so strongly about the injustice of this penalty that had been imposed on him for about 8 or 9 weeks—he was not quite sure of the length of time—he did not take advantage of the hour's exercise to which he was entitled. He told me that when they were allowed this exercise he and this other prisoner


had to walk round in a circle one behind the other, and they were forbidden to talk, under threat of being put on report and further punished.
I will not go into detail about the conditions of the cells. One does not expect the cells in which prisoners in solitary confinement are put to be the best in the prison. The punishment cells in Wandsworth Prison are semi-basement, and I am prepared to believe what he told me, namely, that during the winter months when he was in this punishment block, or segregation wing, or whatever it is called officially, the light had to be kept burning all day and he hardly saw daylight for a long period.
The other prisoner whom I saw had been kept in solitary confinement from 24th December until some time in the middle of May. He also was emphatic in declaring that no specific charge had teen made to which he could reply, and no evidence had been adduced to justify his being put into solitary confinement.
When I saw the governor he told me that he had reason to believe, although he was not able to give me the evidence on which he came to that conclusion, that on Christmas Day Gallagher, and the prisoner whose name is Colin George Shipley, would have organised a mutiny, a id, unless he had put these two men into solitary confinement, 1,500 prisoners would have mutinied on Christmas Day.
These two prisoners had never been paced on a charge for attempted mutiny or for organising mutiny, or anything of that kind. All they were told was that they were suspected of subversive activities and undesirable actions. These were the phrases repeated by the right hon. Gentleman in his letter to me. I am always suspicious when people are accused of subversive activities and undesirable actions.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman for further details and, if he could, to amplify what he meant when he talked about Gillagher's subversive activities and undesirable actions. In his letter of 15th July the right hon. Gentleman said:
'Gallagher has long been known as a recalcitrant prisoner. In an earlier sentence he had to be returned to Wandsworth from the training prison at Maidstone because he was found to be a very bad influence. During his present sentence he and another prisoner were strongly suspected of attempting to provoke mass disobedience on the exercise ground early

in November, 1959. Later that month Gallagher seriously assaulted a fellow prisoner. In the following month it came to the Governor's ear that Gallagher and other prisoners were planning to provoke mass disobedience on Christmas Day and he obtained authority to segregate all three. I understand that all prisoners who are segregated under Rule 36 are told why they have been so treated. No demonstration took place on Christmas Day, but the state of tension among the prisoners left the staff in no doubt that disorder had been planned and narrowly averted.
I would still like to know what the evidence was for coming to that conclusion. In any event, I am not going to argue that Gallagher or Shipley are lily-white angels. They have long, criminal records. I know their records and the previous offences for which they were punished while serving these and other sentences. But those offences are irrelevant so far as this issue is concerned, namely, that these two men were put into solitary confinement for four and five months, respectively, on charges never specified and of which they were not acquainted.
Therefore, it is incorrect for the right hon. Gentleman to say—and I am sorry that he has apparently been misled into saying it—that all prisoners who are segregated under Rule 36 are told why they are so treated. I have confirmed by interview with these prisoners that this is just not the case. I saw these two men.
I have had some experience of commanding men. I have had to recommend men for promotion to senior non-commissed and commissioned ranks. I have therefore had some little experience in assessing qualities of leadership. I must say that I remain completely unconvinced that these two men have sufficient strength of character or the dominating qualities which could lead anyone to suppose that they were capable of organising 1,500 men to stage a mutiny on Christmas Day.
Even if they had those gifts and qualities for organising something like two battalions of men to mutiny at the drop of the hat and if, to that extent, the Governor would be justified in putting them into solitary confinement on Christmas Day and for a few days after, it seems no justification for keeping them in solitary confinement for as late as April or May the following year just


because they were suspected of being involved in an attempt to organise 1,500 men into staging a mutiny.
Since I first raised this matter I have received letters from other prisoners, and I am going to write to them. I am going to read them because they confirm what I am trying to point out. I have not had permission to read these letters, but I am going to read them just the same. The first letter is from K. Holmes. It is addressed from Dartmoor and dated 17th July, 1960:
Dear Sir, I submit for your information"—
before I read this letter further, I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, because he does not know about these letters yet, I have just got them—
the fact of my being put in solitary confinement in this prison for 12 days between 7th–19th December, 1957, without having committed any offence or been put on any charge. I complained daily to the prison governor and as to being put in a cell having no chair, mat or washstand, with a dirty mattress in a board base, with water cascading outside the door, and so dark as to require the electric light to be on all day and so dirty as to be beyond description, the writing on the walls going back more than 22 years.
I submitted all these facts to the visiting committee on 12th December, 1957, and requested that they should inspect the hovel in the basement where I was lodged. The committee refused to do so or to take any action. I wrote to the Rt. Hon. J. Chuter Ede the same day putting on record these same facts without result. I further put on record these same facts in a petition of 16th December. 1957, and when there was a telephone call from the Home Office on 18th December. 1957, ordering my return to my location. I have complained repeatedly to the Home Office of such abuse of authority to the extent of requesting the appointment of a governor to this prison, which request of last September came to fruition last May. Letters to my parents complaining of prison treatment have been repeatedly suppressed, and on their writing to the Home Office last year they were informed that I worked 12 days in his cell and not in association 'which is a most inadequate admission of my condition at that time. I have on other occasions been put on trumpery charges resulting in my being put in solitary confinement on no less than 5 occasions, but the Home Office admit only one of his punishments has resulted in exclusion from associated work.'
I have complained to the board of visitors of this falsification of the record but no action has resulted I complained again to the visiting commissioners while at Pentonville Prison last December, when Mr. Henderson said it was not his concern. I am gratified to note that such unscrupulous abuse of authority and disregard of human values may now be the concern of someone, and if any denizens of

Regent's Park had been so mistreated there would have been a vigorous protest from the R.S.P.C.A. My attention has been directed to the prison rule threatening punishment if anything is communicated to the press or by any person visiting me, which with the suppression of my letters is calculated by the Home Office to conceal such maltreatment of which I complain, but it is questionable whether the Home Office is privileged to maintain any such threat offensive to fundamental principles which Mr. R. A. Butler has so often proclaimed as being his purpose to uphold.
I was able to intimate to the visiting committee last week that such manifestations of abuse, bigotry and degradation appear to have departed with the previous governor; but such malpractices could not arise if the Home Office and the prison commissioners were less concerned with concealment. Yours sincerely, K. E. Holmes.
I have another letter dated 20th July from prisoner L. Wells at Parkhurst. He writes as follows:
Dear Sir, In view of the fact that Mr. Butler has removed the old time ban on writing letters to Members of Parliament, without any obstruction I am taking this opportunity of doing so. Mr. Butler has been asked to consider the undesirability of solitary confinement. I have just come up from solitary confinement from the 15th June until the 20th July. The offence I committed, nothing, no report made out against me. Prison officer told the governor that in his opinion I was the root of all his trouble. He told the governor that I threatened men with violence. He did not see any of this, I know, just information he received. Who from, he did not state, no other evidence to uphold what this man said. I would like to point out that I was not punished in any way, so I was told. I lost all my privileges, incarcerated for 23 hours a day, and my pay cut by half for five weeks. Also lost three months stage. I have been in this prison now since the 23rd February this year, and I have not been implicated in any trouble. This man has been hostile to me at all times. This man has a strong personal dislike for me. Nothing I can do about that, but he should abuse authority for any personal reason.
There is not one iota of evidence that has justified this incarceration. This is the power this man has over me, one word from him and down I go, Mr. Butler is concerned about this sort of punishment, so am I, deeply concerned. I am still a young man and I have no wish to come out a raving wreck of a lunatic. I don't think there was anything else the governor could do but put me on Rule 36 upon hearing the statement by the officer. But I do think some investigation could have been made regarding his statement. The men I threatened with violence, where are they? That is evidence. I could have been given some sort of trial. There was nothing, no men and no evidence, just this man's hate for me. I have seen a member of the visiting committee regarding this incarceration, but I could get no satisfaction, but by doing so I have conformed with conditions laid down, all of them. I


don't know why the officer did not state that I was the root of the trouble at Leopoldville, it would have been just as stupid as the statement he did make. If a man makes trouble. then he is punished, but there is no power in prison, or out, that can lawfully punish a man who has committed no offence. Yet this has been done to me, and I can get no redress. When I ask why, I was told, you'r in. I gave the order and your stopping there. I want to know why, what crime and for what reason. That is why, sir, I am writing to you hoping that you may be able to help me, also if something can be done about little Martin Bormann. In writing this letter I, L. Wells 6275, have conformed with the rules, therefore this letter should not he obstructed in any way. Date of posting 20–7–60, time about 2 o'clock. I am sir. Yours faithfully, L. Wells.
I have had other letters from men who have been in solitary confinement, but I cannot reveal the names of the senders because those letters have been smuggled out of prison. The senders fiat very strongly on the matter and said I could use what methods I wished, but if their names were revealed sentences would he imposed on them for this admitted breach of the regulations.
The imposition of solitary confinement appears to depend on the ipsi dixit of one man, the prison governor. In the case of the two men in Wandsworth, he heard that these men were about to organise a mutiny and so this punishment was imposed on them, not for anything they had done or for their past record—lamentable as it undoubtedly is in each case—but simply because, acting on information received, which has never been disclosed, the governor decided that these men should be put on solitary confinement.
I quite agree that the governor should have this power, but only to be used as an emergency measure and subject to strict limitations. The Home Secretary said he asked the Prison Commission to investigate the practice of awarding solitary confinement, but I suggest that the Commission does not know what is going on, or does know and it is hushed up. In either case, it toes not consist of suitable people to conduct this inquiry.
If I am asked what proposals I would put forward, I would say, first, we ought to have an inquiry into the present unsatisfactory system, conducted not by the Prison Commissioners or anyone connected with the prison service. Only in that way will some sort of confidence be re-established.

Secondly, I suggest that no sentence of solitary confinement should be carried out on a man without a charge being made in writing. That is not an unreasonable request. The evidence I have collected showing that men are put into solitary confinement without any specific charge being made is too comprehensive and comes from too many sources to be ignored. Therefore, I suggest that no sentence of solitary confinement should be imposed without a charge being put in writing. We should no longer have the continuation of a system under which a sentence can be imposed for an indefinite period on the basis of evidence which is never disclosed.
I accept that in cases of emergency the governor must have power to segregate dangerous prisoners, but this should be limited, and I suggest that no sentence of more than one, or at the outside two, weeks should be imposed without the prisoner being given the right of appearing before the visiting magistrate. In suitable cases that magistrate would have power to extend the sentence for a period of not more than another two weeks, so that neither the governor nor the visiting magistrate, acting singly or together, would have the power to keep a man in solitary confinement for more than a month.
In any event, the prisoner ought to have the right to appear before the visiting magistrate on every occasion on which it is thought necessary that the short period of solitary confinement to which I have referred should be extended. If the period of solitary confinement is to be longer than one month, the prisoner ought to have the right to a hearing before one or other of the Prison Commissioners, who would not have power to impose solitary confinement for a period, say, exceeding one more month.
The present system is so unsatisfactory and there is so much injustice that the time has come for the whole matter to be reviewed. I have said that the prison governor must have the power to impose these punishments in emergency, and I do not deny that he must exercise that right, but some automatic limit ought to be imposed on the length of sentence to solitary confinement. The prison governors cannot be regarded as


gods in these matters. They are doing a difficult job at a salary which varies from about £1,350 a year to £2,250. That is less than the salary of a stipendiary magistrate, although in certain respects the latter has nothing like the powers possessed by prison governors. I mention the salaries to show the market value which the Home Office attaches to the job of prison governor and to show that at these salaries we cannot expect that the most brilliant men will be willing to take on this kind of job.
In these circumstances I think that a case has been made out for a radical review of the whole system. I hope that the Minister will tonight hold out a reasonable prospect of a thorough investigation into this problem, not by the Prison Commissioners, who are already too deeply involved in it, but by an independent outside tribunal whose findings will inspire confidence and will not leave these prisoners with a rankling sense of injustice, as a result of which they will become worse than they were before. We must try to redeem these men—even those with a long criminal record—if we can. Sometimes we fail, but we ought not to give them this deep-seated feeling of injustice against which, in the present circumstances, they are fully entitled to complain.

12.59 a.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: I will intervene for only a moment or two at this late hour, but I cannot resist the opportunity because I used to be a prison visitor and I was a visitor to the very prison which the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) mentioned—Wandsworth. I assure the House that anyone who has any illusions about life before becoming a prison visitor will very quickly lose them afterwards, because the great majority of those in prison are hopeless people. In my opinion, there is nothing more foolish than to take as true a statement by a prisoner unless it is very well supported by evidence. I recognise the sense of humanity and the moderate way in which the hon. Member put his case and the sincere way in which he spoke, but I say that all the letters which he read out are completely worthless. It was not very good judgment to read out such letters which contained attacks on the prison governors and statements like

"unscrupulous abuse of authority" made by prisoners and completely unsupported by evidence.
From what I know of prison governors—I have met a great many of them, not only at Wandsworth—I have not the slightest doubt that there is no truth whatever in those statements. Prison governors are a remarkably dedicated set of men. They are not just men in jobs. They have gone into those jobs and they would not have been allowed in those positions if they did not have a great sense of humanity and a desire to improve the lot of their fellow men in unfortunate positions. It is quite wrong to suggest that something has been done by individual governors of which there is no evidence.
I have not the slightest doubt that this man Gallagher knew precisely what he had done which he should not have done which caused the governor to submit a report saying that he was subversive and a bad element. The hon. Member mentioned that the man was known to have made an attack on somebody else and that he was a thoroughly bad character. To come to this House and suggest what is an irresponsible failure on the part of prison governors is not helpful.
The hon. Member touched on reforms which are necessary. I do not know whether there is a case for reviewing solitary confinement. If so, I do i not doubt that this will be done, as was indicated in the letter from the Prison Commissioners. Attacks of this sort, on the unsupported statements of prisoners who are known to be thoroughly bad characters, should not, however, be made by a responsible Member of this House.

1.2 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I am glad that the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) took my advice and visited Wandsworth Prison. I am a little surprised that, having done so and having ascertained the records of these two men, both within and without the prison, as the hon. Member must have done, he tended at times to represent to the House that this was a case of two innocent prisoners being victimised by an oppressive governor. As the hon. Member must know, the facts of the case are entirely contrary to that.
I should say a word about the publicity aspect. There is no reason why, having gone through the usual channels, any prisoner should not write to his Member of Parliament and why that Member of Parliament should not then ventilate such cases in this House, as the hon. Member has done tonight. What prisoners cannot do—this results from a statement made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) as Home Secretary in 1949—is to communicate to a Member of Parliament a statement intended for the Press. There is, obviously, a difference between those two acts.
All this stems from an attempt to try to maintain good order and discipline in the interests of prisoners themselves, nobody is more desirous than my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of liberalising the penal regime. The more one does that, the more it is necessary in the interests of prisoners themselves to ensure that that regime is not disturbed by a undesirable elements in the prison.
That is where Rule 36 of the Prison Rules, 1949, comes into operation. There is nothing new about this rule. I imagine that prior to 1949, there was an even more stringent rule. The effect of the rule h, quite simply, to authorise the governor to arrange for a prisoner to work in his cell and not in association with other prisoners. In practice, it goes rather further than that, because other forms of association in prison—association for meals and for recreational purposes—are within the discretion of the governor. Therefore, when a prisoner is segregated for work, almost invariably he is segregated for other purposes at the same time within the discretion of the governor, and that is the answer raised by the prisoner, Gallagher, to which the hon. Member referred.
I would emphasise that the sole purpose of this rule is to try to maintain good order and discipline in the interests of the prisoners themselves. Generally speaking, prisoners are segregated—I prefer to use that word: I will explain why in a moment—into two categories. Either they are prisoners who wish themselves to be segregated; and the majority come into that category: or else, on the other hand, they are prisoners who are very violent and who

are troublemakers. The two cases instanced by the hon. Member come into the latter category.
By the maintenance of good order and discipline I mean something more than the smooth running of the prison, something more than mere protection of staff from assault, although I think both these things would be legitimate in themselves. The main purpose—this is the most important thing I can say to the hon. Member—is the protection of the great body of prisoners themselves who only want to serve their sentence quietly and earn the maximum amount of remission for good conduct. If bullies are allowed a free hand the life of those prisoners can become a sheer misery.
I visited Wormwood Scrubs last week and asked, without any previous notice, to visit two prisoners segregated under Rule 36. I found both of them had been told quite clearly why they had been segregated, as is the invariable rule of prison governors. In the case of the two prisoners mentioned by the hon. Member, it is quite clear that they had been told on the following day at least by the Governor that they had been segregated for subversive influences. What they did not accept, of course, was that their influence was subversive, and for that reason they argued to the hon. Member that they had not been told; but that must be a matter of opinion.
The next point I would make is that this Rule 36 has safeguards. The governor must obtain the consent of a member of the visiting committee or of an Assistant Commissioner. He did this in both cases. Thereafter the prisoner segregated has the right to apply—as they did in this case—to a member of the visiting committee. In both cases the visiting committee supported the action of the prison Governor. It is necessary for the action of the prison governor to be confirmed each month if the segregation under Rule 36 is to be continued. Therefore, there are safeguards to the power which is given to the prison governor in this respect.
The hon. Member rather suggested from the letters he had received—one was from a prisoner only too familiar to me, Kenneth Edward Holmes—that there are many prisoners in this situation. In fact that is not so. The figures I have


got are very interesting. They show that in the middle of July there were some 22,000 male prisoners in the prisons of this country; 81 of those were under Rule 36, but 55 of those 81 were segregated for their own protection and at their own request. A further eight were segregated because of disposition to violence and a further 17 because of troublemaking activities. This is a small proportion of the prison population, and it was done in the interests of the other prisoners themselves.
I think the real point at issue here, and I think the hon. Member will agree on this, is that segregation obviously must continue. It is in the interests of prison discipline and penal reform, but perhaps the difference between segregation and solitary confinement is the real source of his concern, and it was that which my right hon. Friend had in mind when replying to the Question in the House the other day. Quite recently the Prison Commission have communicated to governors the desire that where possible some better arrangements should be made for the segregation of prisoners whereby the period of solitary confinement could perhaps be limited by confining prisoners under Rule 36 in some part of a landing in prison for themselves.
I agree with the hon. Member for Brixton that 23 hours out of 24 in a cell is not a desirable arrangement, but segregation is essential. The problem before my right hon. Friend in these days of overcrowded prisons is to find a method of effecting segregation without solitary confinement as it exists at present. In some prisons in the last few months it has been possible to move rather faster in this direction than it has been possible in others, and it is in this direction that my right hon. Friend is anxious to move.
I cannot give any very helpful indication that we can in every prison provide means of segregation where solitary confinement will not be necessary, because that depends upon the accommodation and on the type of prisoner. But it is my right hon. Friend's intention—and this was the purpose of his reply to a supplementary question—to pursue a policy not of eliminating Rule 36, which in my opinion is an absolutely essential rule, but of trying to improve conditions under which segregation is carried out. Therefore, in reply to the hon. Member for Brixton—and I was glad to be supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Lindsay) with his experience in this matter—I would say that I am absolutely certain that segregation is essential in the interest of prisoners and that there are adequate safeguards by appeal to visitors and the Assistant Commissioners. But I do not think that the hon. Member for Brixton disputes that in the two cases he has raised the record of the prisoners were sufficient to justify the action taken by the Governor. I explained this fairly fully in my letter of 15th July. Despite that, it is my right hon. Friend's intention to improve conditions in prisons and the conditions in which segregation is carried out.

Mr. Lipton: Is there any reason why a prisoner who is segregated or put in solitary confinement should not be given a chit setting out in writing the reasons for his being so confined? That would get rid of a great deal of the feeling of injustice which apparently exists today.

Mr. Vosper: I will look at that, but in the cases which the hon. Member mentioned neither prisoner denied that he was given the reason, but neither accepted the reason. If it had been put in writing I do not think that it would have been the solution in those cases.

Orders of the Day — SCOTLAND

1.13 a.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I wish to raise two points which affect my constituency. The first comes within the province of the Board of Trade, and I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary in his place. I make no apology for raising once more the question of the great need for industry in my constituency, particularly in that part of it which is covered by the Seventh District Council. I have already shown to the Parliamentary Secretary and other Ministers that in a little over ten years over 3,000 jobs have been lost in that area.
When we saw what would happen as a result of the closing of pits a number of years ago, Lanarkshire County Council sent a deputation to meet Ministers of the Board of Trade, the Scottish Office and the Ministry of Labour. In June, 1959, a demonstration from the area went to Edinburgh and a deputation was received by the Secretary of State for Scotland. In January this year a conference was held in the Seventh District Council area which was attended by representatives of the three Ministries concerned. It was decided to send a deputation to London. We were assured that the Secretary of State, the President of the Board of Lade and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour would be there to meet it, but very late in the day we were told that the President of the Board of Trade was not available for that meeting. The Parliamentary Secretary was there, and I am certain that he gave all the help that he could, but hon. Members can imagine that my constituents, travelling all that way having been promised that the President would be there, were very disappointed indeed to find that he was not.
On 24th March last year, a deputation came from the Lanarkshire County Council in connection with Lanarkshire's very great need for employment. Those deputations do not come on joyrides to London. They come because they are responsible people seriously perturbed about the lack of opportunity for employment in almost the whole of Lanarkshire.
Time and time again when I have raised this matter in the House I have been told 'by the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government cannot direct industry. I accept that. I have never asked them to direct industry into any part of my constituency. But when they have told me that they cannot direct industry they have always told me that they would do everything possible to help any industrialist interested in setting up industry in my constituency.
I asked the Secretary of State a Question on 8th December, 1959—whether he had any statement to make about the considerations which he had given to the points made by the deputation to St. Andrew's House. This is the Secretary of State's reply:
I assure the hon. Lady that I recognise the gravity of the position at Shotts and am continuing to give it special consideration, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 8th December, 1959; Vol. 615, c. 20.]
So the Secretary of State himself used the word "gravity". He realises—but other Ministers do not—how grave indeed is the position in the area, not only at Shotts but in all the villages round about it.
I shall show tonight why I have completely lost faith in the protestations of the Secretary of State, the President of the Board of Trade or any of the other Ministers. During the General Election and during the passage of the Local Employment Bill we were promised very great movements of industry into those areas where there was serious unemployment. I remember it particularly during the election.
I will deal with the fate of two firms which made application—first, they went to D.A.T.A.C., and they were later passed on to B.O.T.A.C. for financial provision, later under the Local Employment Act. The first of the firms would have brought much-needed employment for women in my constituency—a constituency, like most mining constituencies, with little employment for women.
The firm was told finally when the application got through the very narrow pipeline that it could have a loan but no grant. This new firm has shown great initiative and great courage and


has had some success. There is no doubt that, given the chance, it would become a most viable concern. The Board of Trade must have accepted that when it was willing to give the firm a loan. But the firm was denied a grant. The firm is unable, because it is such a young, new firm, to move into my area without a grant to tide it over the first year for the training of completely "green" labour.
The Parliamentary Secretary told me in a letter that for part of the time the loan would be without interest. But I am informed—the firm has kept very closely in touch with me—that the interest would amount to only a very few hundreds of pounds. It would be of little help in the training of this labour.
The second firm, on the advice of those who come to inquire into a D.A.T.A.C. loan, established itself at the other end of my constituency, near Glasgow. It applied for a loan, not for a grant, and was refused it. This firm will continue in my constituency, but it will take it very much longer to build up the full complement of labour which could have been built up very quickly if it had been given the loan for which it asked—a loan which it would have paid back.
On the second occasion, I asked for an interview with the President of the Board of Trade and was willing to meet him at any time from early Monday morning until Thursday at midnight, or even on Friday morning. He could not find even a few minutes. How I wish many of my constituents were so busy that they could not find a few minutes to deal with these matters, but they have 24 hours every day when all they can do is twiddle their thumbs because they can find no work at all.
I have always found the Parliamentary Secretary most courteous in these matters, and on the first occasion, when I took up the question of the firm refused the grant, I saw him without any difficulty. We discussed the matter but he told me that, according to the Local Employment Act, B.O.T.A.C. makes the decisions. I thought that I might be able to impress upon his right hon. Friend that that is not the case.
According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the President of the Board of Trade had abrogated all his power in these matters to this advisory committee, as had all of us as Members of Parliament. That is not the case. Section 4 of the Local Employment Act says:
Where, in accordance with recommendations of the advisory committee…
Note the word "recommendations". The Section goes on to state the things that the minister can do. One of them is that he can give a loan or grant provided that he is assured that the concern will be viable. I stressed the word "recommendations". It is not a decision of this Committee that is entailed. The Committee makes a recommendation to the President. It is quite wrong for any Minister at the Board of Trade to say that there is nothing he can do if B.O.T.A.C. makes a decision against an application.
I hope the House will realise that I have lost faith in these protestations after what has happened time and time again when an industrialist has shown interest in an area where, the Secretary of State says, the position is one of gravity and everything will be done to help it. The firm which sought the loan will now take longer to build up its complement of workers. The other firm, which would have brought much needed work to the women and girls in my constituency cannot come because it cannot have the grant for which it asked.
I want the Parliamentary Secretary to examine Section 4 of the Act and see whether he puts the same interpretation on it that I and many people do. If he comes to the conclusion that his right hon. Friend can alter a recommendation that is made by B.O.T.A.C., then there is a clear duty on his right hon. Friend to give help to these firms that have applied to bring work to my constituency.
The only other point I want to make is that we in this area, which has been so badly hit, have one industry in place of the three thousand jobs we lost, and we got that because a factory was lying vacant at the time an American firm was looking for work.
I asked a question today of the President of the Board of Trade. In answer to a supplementary question I was told a decision would soon be made. Will


that decision be made before we rise for the Summer Recess? Will we know what the decision is? If the decision is to build more advance factories—and I hope it is not only one for Scotland—will we be told before we rise where thy are to go? It seems of the greatest importance, particularly when one sees the figures that have been given for unemployment in Scotland only last week, where the drop was much less in Scotland than in any other single area in Britain. We are down by a little more than two hundred, but unemployment among our youth has gone up to over five thousand. The decision ought to be made very quickly indeed.
I have a few words to say on a different subject. I presented a Petition today about a by-pass road to Harthill. This Glasgow-Edinburgh road was completed, I understand, in 1936. It was built to take up unemployment at that time. I think that about 1938 it was proposed that a by-pass should be made around this village. We are now in 1960, and the Secretary of State can give no indication when this village is going to be by-passed.
I know that a great many accidents to pedestrians, some fatal, have taken place, particularly to children. When I try to make out a case I hope to give as many facts to back it up as I can. I asked my agent to get all the statistics he could from the two police authorities concerned. One little stretch is in West Lothian. He got without difficulty the number of accidents since 1956 for that little stretch, but from Lanarkshire he could not get the figures at all. He was told that we would get them from St. Andrew's House. I got in touch with St. Andrew's House and was informed that it would take six weeks to get the figures from 1945 to 1960. I think that is disgraceful. I was told that the Home Office did not think it worth while to ask Lanarkshire police to look out these figures. It was known that the death rate was high, and surely that was enough.
My point is that the Secretary of State has decided to make a double carriageway from Baillieston to Newhouse. The Joint Under-Secretary has told me there are more accidents on this road, and I accept that. I accept that many of the

accidents are caused by cars running into each other as they come out of the side roads, but the people who are driving those cars are adult and have to accept responsibility for driving with greater care. I am concerned about the children.
The traffic flow on the road is 7,000 vehicles a day and the chief of police of the area has said that on the occasion of a sporting or other event in Glasgow or Edinburgh, the road is like a race track, pedestrians having a thin time.
The Secretary of State should announce as quickly as possible that, as Minister of Transport for Scotland, he intends to build a by-pass to divert this traffic. The committee interested in this matter represents all the responsible people in the village. They feel, and they have expressed their feeling to me, that the right hon. Gentleman's decision to make a dual carriageway has been taken so that he will be able to show the people of Scotland that some work is being done on some roads, but he is choosing the cheapest part of the road on which to do it.
The lives of children and old people are of the greatest importance and I have been asked to express as forcefully as possible the hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that the right hon. Gentleman intends to do something about this by-pass.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. George Lawson: My point is addressed directly to the Board of Trade and I am grateful that the Parliamentary Secretary is here at this very late hour. As there are still other hon. Members who wish to speak, I will be as brief as possible.
The subject with which I am concerned relates to a group of industrial buildings about which the Parliamentary Secretary has already heard. The buildings belong to the Admiralty and not to the Board of Trade, but in effect the Admiralty has passed responsibility for them to the Board of Trade in the hope that the Board of Trade will be able to do something about them, either selling them or having them taken over by Scottish Industrial Estates to be run as an industrial estate. Although this is Admiralty property, the problem is very much a Board of Trade problem.
The group of buildings about which I am concerned is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) and are at Carfin in North Lanarkshire, part of the area about which my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) spoke so ably. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell is not here, else he would have been putting the case which I am now making.
The buildings were erected by the Admiralty initially for storage purposes and are very extensive. They cover more than 400,000 square feet of floor space and there are 14 bays, each of some 30,000 square feet, in the main buildings. Having visited the buildings with my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell last week, I can say that they are substantial and in excellent condition. The walls are substantial and are probably 18-inch walls. There is corrugated asbestos roofing and there are high doors. The light does not come from the roof but from double windows along both long walls. It is not as bright perhaps as some of the more modern factories, but there is considerable natural light. In addition, there are facilities for providing artificial light.
This group of buildings stands in a considerable area of ground which could be utilised for further development. In addition to the bays which I have described, there is a block of offices. There is also a transformer system, so there is an abundance of electric power. There is a building which was formerly used for canteen purposes, a building which was formerly used for surgery purposes, and some of the buildings are equipped with overhead cranes. In three of the higher bays—bays with a roof clearance of more than 20 ft.—there are overhead cranes. There are five of these 6-ton overhead electrically-driven cranes, and I am told that they can move the whole length of the bays in which they are situated.
All these buildings are linked with a rail system which leads directly on to the main railway line which runs directly North and South. In addition, there are on the premises two pugs, a steam pug and a diesel pug, so there are ample facilities and equipment.
The buildings are excellently sited from an industrial point of view. They are almost within a stone's throw of the great stripmill about which we have heard so much. Actually, it can be seen across the way, and the railway line leading from those industrial buildings leads directly on to the railway line that will go directly into the Colville stripmill.
These buildings are centrally sited. They are within a few miles of Glasgow and the Clyde, and within a few miles of Edinburgh, Grangemouth, Leith and the Forth leading out to the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. They are situated on the railway line leading South for the purposes of rail transport, and they are situated on the road leading South for the purposes of road transport. In fact, it would be difficult to think of a more central site.
The buildings are within a few miles of Bathgate where the British Motor Corporation is to erect its tractor factory, and on the other side it is within a few miles of Renfrew and Paisley where we hope the Rootes people will erect their motorcar factory. It is a central site and for the life of me I cannot see why vie facilities there cannot be utilised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell and I have been to see the President of the Board of Trade. We have been to see the Admiralty. We have raised the matter by letter. We have raised it in the House. We are told that the Admiralty cannot sell the property, and that the Board of Trade cannot dispose of it.
The Board of Trade told us that it had had about 20 inquiries about this site. It has shown about 20 firms over the site, or mentioned it to 20 firms. I have looked at the very few names we have been given of firms which have inquiried about this property. I think it can fairly be said that, with one exception, none of those firms have come to Scotland. It therefore seems that they were not very keen in the first place. The one exception is a firm which has gone to another part of Scotland, and my information is that this firm was already tied up with another part of Scotland before it was told about this group of buildings.
We understand that there is a likelihood of these buildings being sold to a whisky firm for the purpose of storing


whisky. I have nothing against the whisky trade. I appreciate, as do my hon. Friends, the importance of whisky to this country and to Scotland. We appreciate some of the difficulties which have confronted whisky firms, notably the fires in Glasgow. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary with all the emphasis that I can command that if those premises are passed over to a whisky firm, sterilised from an employment point of view, it will cause very serious feeling in this part of Lanarkshire, and, indeed, in industrial Scotland.
I cannot accept—I say this quite frankly to the hon. Gentleman, and I have said it to the President of the Board of Trade and to the representatives of the Admiralty—that the buildings are fit for no other purpose than storage. They are excellent buildings. I know that there is a little difficulty in that the buildings are steam heated from a central boiler house, but there is ample electric power and they could be very easily and quite cheaply space heated by that power which is readily available.
There are two things I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is do not sell those buildings for whisky storage purposes, and at least hold up the matter for six months. Secondly, give the buildings a chance. Send someone to see them who is not prejudiced against them and who has no bias against them. Let my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell and me accompany that person. Let it be pointed out to us what the deficiencies are. I am pleading that the buildings should be properly inspected from the standpoint of their suitability for industrial purposes. I repeat, do not sell the buildings now and let them be properly inspected.
If we are convinced that the deficiencies are such that the buildings cannot be utilised for industrial purposes except at very considerable expense we will accept the position gracefully, but we are very far from satisfied that that is the case now. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that he will do what I have asked. This is an industrial area and much benefit might accrue to it if the buildings are properly utilised.

1.43 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. John Rodgers): I am sure that no one on either side of the House is unaware of the gravity—and I use the word advisedly—of the unemployment situation in Scotland. We have debated it often and it comes up regularly at Question Time. We are all aware that Scotland as a whole, with its 69,000 unemployed representing 3·2 per cent., is an area where we need to stimulate activity, both within Scotland and by helping to steer firms from England into Scotland, and, indeed, attract investment from abroad—from America, Canada and other places.
We are doing our best, and I think that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was a little less than fair about the matter. The indications are that the powers under the new Bill are beginning to work. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade recently gave the figures of employment that is likely to accrue for over 30,000 people. That prospect is growing all the time and there are other projects coming along.
Although the present position is not good enough—and it is no use pretending that it is—things are happening and good news will be coming along from time to time which, we hope, will help to allay the apprehension in the minds of many hon. Members, particularly of hon. Members opposite.
We accept, obviously, that the present employment situation in Shotts is not at all good. The average level of unemployment for the last twelve months has been 5·3 per cent., which is worse than the Scottish average of 3·2 per cent. But it is only—I used the word "only" in no critical sense—392 people. I would point out that the B.M.C. project at Bathgate is only ten miles away. They will have to recruit at least 5,000 people for that factory, and they will have to bring in labour from outside the Bathgate area and the Shotts area is an obvious source of supply.
In addition, I can make one announcement which should please the hon. Lady. It is that Dunlops have recently been granted an I.D.C. at Whitburn, which is between Bathgate and Shotts, and should employ about 200 men, and that will help to alleviate


the position. Other firms associated with B.M.C. are expected to follow, but I am not in a position to announce details because they are not yet final. So the picture is a little more rosy than the hon. Lady painted it.

Miss Herbison: I already knew about Dunlops, it was announced in the local Press at the week end. The hon. Member has referred to all the jobs, but it is not just a question of the unemployed in my area. There is also Coatbridge and Airdrie and all the villages round which are within a short distance of Bathgate and where there are high figures of unemployment. All these people cannot possibly hope to get work at Bathgate. It seems to me that much more work for the whole area is necessary.

Mr. Rodgers: I do not think there is any dispute between the hon. Lady and myself about that. We shall do our best to continue to pursue our policy of getting firms established in Scotland.
I wish to take up a point made by the hon. Lady about our powers under the Local Employment Act. She suggested that the Board of Trade should take power to override the recommendations of the B.O.T.A.C. Committee, or the old D.A.T.A.C. Committee as it was called when it came under the Treasury. I wish to point out that in the 1945 Distribution of Industry Act, passed by the Caretaker Government, it was laid down that,
The Treasury may, in accordance with recommendations of an advisory committee appointed by them agree…
Those are the exact words used in the 1945 Act. This limitation was accepted by the subsequent Labour Government and they made no attempt to alter it in 1950. The repetition of this provision in Section 4 of the Local Employment Act to which the hon. Lady drew my attention was not challenged by the Opposition when the Measure was going through the House. I am sure most hon. Members would agree on reflection that it is highly desirable that when the expenditure of substantial sums of public money is involved we should be able to place reliance on the advice of highly experienced people in these matters. When we lend tens of thousands of pounds and in some cases millions we

want the best advice from business people about whether the undertaking is likely to be a success and viable once Government aid has been exhausted. This important Committee acts as a buffer between the Board of Trade and the company making the submission and we are right therefore to abide by its decisions, in fact we are bound to abide by them—

Miss Herbison: No.

Mr. Rodgers: With respect, we have to abide by the recommendations of this Committee. I ought to point out that the Chairman is a Scotsman and two others of the five members are Scots. Therefore, if there is any bias it should be in favour of Scotland.

Mr. William Ross: Only three?

Mr. Rodgers: Only three. I admit that the other two are Sassenachs, but I think that three out of five is a large percentage. It would be wrong to bring political pressure to overrule a committee of experts whose job is to judge an application on its merits and recommend whether a grant or loan should be made. It has to advise us whether it thinks by its business judgment an undertaking is one to which we should grant public money.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the President of the Board of Trade under the Act cannot directly override a recommendation of the Committee, but he can ask the Committee to think again about any recommendation about a particular firm.

Mr. Rodgers: There have been several occasions on which the Committee has had second thoughts and has revised its original offer. During the motor car negotiations this has been a continuing process, not just one application, and we exercise our power in that way. We do not attempt to override the Committee at all, but the Committee is always willing to look at any case a second time, particularly if fresh facts are available or a man wants to alter his application.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry: but I do not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)


nor with the Minister. I should like the Minister to say where in Section 4 there is a single word, or group of words, which makes it mandatory on the President of the Board of Trade willy-nilly to accept whatever decision is given.
The hon. Gentleman said these are businessmen, and he tried to soften that by saying that three out of the five are Scots. I do not care who they are so long as this may lead to work coming to my constituency. He said they have to consider this because public money is being spent. We on this side of the House are as careful about spending of public money as are hon. Members opposite. The hon. Gentleman said that these businessmen had to decide whether a venture would be viable and able to stand on its own. In the first case I gave they had decided that it would be viable and able to stand on its own. The only thing which prevented that factory coming to my constituency was this matter of a fairly small grant. If the Minister can ask the Committee to look again at an application, why, after all the protestations about the gravity of the situation and the desire for work there, could he not exercise this little right he says he has and ask that the project should be looked at again?

Mr. Rodgers: I am sorry that the hon. Lady anticipated me, because I was about to refer with these individual cases to which she referred. I think it would be quite improper for us to discuss individual cases, although I am always willing to discuss them in private with her, and have done so. I have all the details of the particular cases she mentioned. It is for the Committee to say whether an applicant is putting in enough of his money commensurate with what he expects the Government to put in and so on. It would be quite improper for me to go into the three particular cases she mentioned. I am willing to go into them with her in private, but it would be wrong to give reasons in public why an application was turned down, or even to the person concerned. There are very good reasons for that, which I have explained to the hon. Lady. On these three cases I must be excused for not attempting to say why grants or loans were not granted in the way to which the hon. Lady referred.

Miss Herbison: I am sorry to intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman has referred to three cases. I take it that the third case, about which I have not put in information, has also been turned down?

Mr. Rodgers: No. The third case is still under consideration. One of the other two cases was rejected and in the other a recommendation was made for a loan, plus another amount if the firm purchased a certain factory. There was a waiving of interest. I cannot go into more detail or say why it was felt that a larger grant should not be given. That is all I can say about these individual cases, although I am always happy to discuss them privately with the hon. Lady, if she wishes. I am convinced that the Committee looks at these cases very sympathetically. It is well qualified to do this work, and the evidence is quite good.
Taking Scotland as a whole, the Committee has recommended assistance in 68 cases, 55 under D.A.T.A.C. and 13 under B.O.T.A.C., which has been going for only four months. A total of 100 cases have been rejected and 50 are still under consideration.
We are not satisfied with the position and we think that it should be improved. That is why my right hon. Friend said at Question Time today that the question of advance factories was actively under consideration. We think that up to a point the experiment has succeeded. I announced in the House 18 months ago that it would be undertaken as an experiment, and we have been very pleased with the results of the experiment. I hope that we shall have some good news to give, although I am not in a position to give it tonight. Nor can I say whether we shall announce it before the House rises. Even if we do, we shall not be in a position before the House rises to say where the factories would be; there would need to be consultation about that with the Secretary of State for Scotland and others concerned.

Mr. Jay: Are all the advance factories now let which it was decided a year ago to provide?

Mr. Rodgers: No, but the prospects of a firm let in each case are quite good. One is awaiting a B.O.T.A.C. decision. We are confident that they will


be let, but I cannot say at the moment that all three have been "buttoned up" and contracts signed.
The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) raised the question of Carfin, which he rightly said is not a Board of Trade responsibility but is an Admiralty storage depôt or factory. We are merely doing our best at the Board of Trade to help to dispose of the property. It remains Admiralty property and it is the responsibility of the Admiralty to dispose of it as the hon. Member must have heard when he attended with a deputation to the Admiralty.
It was originally built as a naval depôt for storage purposes, and our information—this is expert information, not simply that of civil servants—is that it is not considered suitable for industrial purposes without very substantial modifications. That is not just our view or the view of the experts but also the view of the 20 or so industrialists to whom we have shown this storage depôt. Not one has been interested in taking it. We have tried actively to interest people in it and have taken them to see it; 20 firms have seen it but not one has been interested in it for production purposes. We have been able to interest them in it for the purpose for which it was originally built—namely, storage. The Admiralty is in the 'process of considering making the whole store available to a whisky firm for the storage of whisky.
I point out to the hon. Member with great sincerity that as a whisky store the depôt will employ about 100 people, which is about the same number as were employed there when it was used by the Admiralty. If we hold up this decision in another attempt to find a manufacturing concern interested in it for production purposes, as the hon. Member suggested, there might be some danger of losing even the 100 jobs which are likely to be created by using the depôt for the storage of whisky. Therefore, I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that we should bring pressure to bear upon the Admiralty not to sell the establishment and that we should go into the whole question of whether it can be used as a manufacturing unit. Our advice is that it definitely cannot

be used for that purpose. It was built as storage and, therefore, we consider that the Admiralty is right in trying to sell it.

Mr. Lawson: We are quite prepared to risk losing the 100 jobs. As we see it, there are no such 100 jobs. If the buildings are so unsuitable, why not satisfy us by arranging, for example, for my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons), myself and some of the local people to go over the buildings and be shown why they are unsuitable for industrial purposes? Why not hold up the sale, arrange a visit and point out the difficulties to us? We would be happy to have that done.

Mr. Rodgers: Much as I should like to satisfy the hon. Member, I cannot bring pressure upon the Admiralty to hold up the sale when the process has gone a long way—

Mr. Lawson: This definitely suggests to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell and me that the buildings are not being given a square deal and that there has been prejudice from the start. Someone has visited the buildings and produced a biased report against them and there has been no proper inspection. If this is not true, why not have the proper inspection now?

Mr. Rodgers: I cannot accept the hon. Member's allegation. The store was built as a store. It was never built as a factory or a manufacturing unit. Therefore, the conclusion, I think, is that it is best used as a store. Our advice, I repeat, is that it cannot be used as a manufacturing unit without extensive modification, which would be uneconomic. This is the view not only of our experts, but of the 20 firms whose representatives have been taken to see this storage and who have all refused to be interested in it as a manufacturing unit but some of whom have expressed interest in it as storage, for which purpose it was built.
I do not quarrel with the hon. Member's description of the overhead cranes, heating, lighting, office accommodation and the like. What he said is true.

Mr. Lawson: How many of the 20 firms were interested in Scotland and have shown this by coming to Scotland?

Mr. Rodgers: Without notice, I could not say how many of the 20 firms are in Scot land now or were in Scotland at the time of their visit, but I shall be happy to try to find out if the hon. Member would like me to do so.
The place was built that way and the 100 jobs are important. This is more an Admiralty than a Board of Trade mater. We have used our offices and tried to sell the unit but have failed. Therefore, we must allow the Admiralty now to go ahead with its attempts to let this Carfin depôt for the purpose for which it was originally built, namely, storage, even of whisky.

2.3 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): I listened to the Petition presented this afternoon by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and I listened to her speech tonight. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I recognise that the section of A.8 that runs through Harthill is not as safe as any of us would like, particularly for pedestrians. We have great sympathy with those who have suffered bereavement or injury on it. We also agree with the hon. Lady that a by-pass should be built. Tonight, the hon. Lady asked when it would be built. I am afraid that I cannot tell her that tonight, and I shall say why.
This is not just a matter of money. There are a number of steps that have to be taken which must inevitably take time before a scheme for building a by-pass can be started. Let me give them to her quite briefly.
As I think she knows, the existing Order was made in 1955. Apart from the fact that our standards of construction have gone up since then the big complication lies, as I think she is aware, in the improvements which are to be made to the road as a result of the development of the B.M.C. factory. In consequence we need to have the line of the road examined again, and, as my right hon. Friend told the hon. Lady on 16th June, we have arranged for consulting engineers to investigate the line of A.8 from Bathgate Junction to Hamlin. We expect to receive their report end recommendations fairly soon. Thereafter it looks as if a new trunk

road order will have to be made, in which case the statutory procedure for making one will have to be gone through.
When my right hon. Friend has obtained power to carry out the scheme, the next thing will be the preparation of the detailed tender plans and specifications and the making of other consequential orders authorising improvements to side roads which, of course-as the House knows, takes a considerable time. That obviously cannot be done at once. So it is quite clear that there can be no question—this is the point the hon. Lady put—of substituting the Harthill by-pass for the scheme to improve the same road from Baillieston cross roads to Newhouse which is already in an advanced stage of preparation.
Turning for a moment to what the hon. Lady had to say about the difficulty of obtaining accident statstiics, especially those going back over a long period, for a particular section of road, perhaps I could just explain what the position is. The position is this, that with the help of the police the Scottish Home Department compiles statistics from returns which are sent to it by the police in a standard form. Those statistics are designed to produce general information about accidents rather than to provide complete information about accidents at specific points in the highway system. The way it works is this.
Each accident involving personal injury has the classification and number of the road recorded against it, and by using the code numbers for police divisions and the local authority, burgh and district, areas, it is possible to get information about limited sections of a road lying within the particular division or local authority area. What the Department cannot do is to isolate a particular stretch within the area such as Harthill, as the local authority district and the police division in which the village is situated cover much wider areas of the county. It is for those divisions and areas that the returns are made. So that the only way of getting information about specific lengths of roads is to ask the police to go through their records and extract it. That is bound to take time, of course, and the further back the hon. Lady wants the statistics for, the longer the time which will be required.
The hon. Lady asked for statistics originally—I may be wrong about this, but this is the impression I was given—back to the time the A8 was opened to traffic in Harthill, which was in 1931. I am told that allowing for the incidence of leave and other staffing difficulties the search would take several weeks and would mean interfering with other police duties, but even so, complete information further back than 1954 is not available. I hope the hon. Lady will accept that to get the information she wants even to 1954 would require a very considerable amount of work for the police.

Miss Herbison: I was informed those statistics were kept up to 1945. I accepted that. Then I was informed that to get them from 1945 to 1960 would take six weeks. I should like to know who calculated the six weeks, for the Under-Secretary must surely realise that figures ought to be available about a road which, I understand, is the worst, considering the length of it, for the deaths of pedestrians anywhere in Scotland.

Mr. Macpherson: I am trying to explain to the hon. Lady how these statistics are compiled. They are compiled by relation to particular local authority areas and police divisions. If a road cut across these divisions or came within them, the statistics would come from different divisions and different areas and it would be very difficult to compile those statistics. If at any time it was decided that it would be a good thing to have them for a particular area, then no doubt from that time on one could prepare them. But one cannot simply look up statistics for this unlimited stretch of road and say, "Here are the statistics." The only way one can do it is to refer the matter back to the various authorities concerned, but they do not have them and they would have to go back over their records in order to extract them.

Miss Herbison: Six weeks? I do not accept it.

Mr. Macpherson: Even taking the matter back to 1954, which is the year back to which they have complete statistics, would take a considerable time. It is difficult to see the point of putting the police to such trouble when we have up-to-date information over a

number of years. I sent that information to the hon. Lady on 20th July. I can give her some more, some of which came to hand just after my letter was sent.
As I told the hon. Lady, during the period between 1st January, 1957, and 31st May, 1960, three adult pedestrians were killed in road accidents between Saltburgh and Harthill. In addition, one child was fatally injured and altogether there were 38 accidents in which 58 persons sustained injury. During the same period there were 25 accidents in Harthill itself, as a result of which 28 persons were injured, one fatally.
I went on to give accident particulars about the Baillieston to Newhouse stretch but for a slightly different period, I can now give these particulars for the same period. The figures are 86 accidents reported in which 141 persons sustained injury, 10 of which were fatal. The hon. Lady said that on the Baillieston—Newhouse stretch the accidents involved adults, whereas in Harthill they largely involved children.

Miss Herbison: The case that I was making was that in Harthill they are pedestrians who are knocked down and killed by cars, while in the Baillieston—Newhouse stretch it was a case of cars coming out far too speedily on to the main road and I said that it was time that motorists realised the danger. My constituents are mainly old people and children who cannot take care of themselves—pedestrians who are knocked down.

Mr. Macpherson: Perhaps I can develop this point, which is important. We agree that both the Baillieston-Newhouse scheme and the Harthill scheme are important. Even if it were thought that the Harthill scheme was more important, the ordinary priority could not be changed now. We hope that the Baillieston section will be ready to go to tender next year. For the reasons which I have already mentioned, it is not possible to reach the same stage on the Harthill bypass probably for at least two years. It would therefore be pointless to defer the Baillieston section to make way for the Harthill section, even if we could agree that the latter really should come first.
What were the considerations that were before us when we decided in 1957 that the Baillieston section should come first? We studied what would have to be done along the whole length of A.8 and examined the accident position over the previous three years. During this period on the 6½ miles of A.8 from Baillieston to Newhouse there were 184 accidents, of which 10 were fatal, and there were 134, of which 3 were fatal, on the 3 miles of A.8 which would be bypassed by Harthill.
The accident rate, of course, is not the sole decisive factor in determining priorities. In comparing the two lengths of road, other considerations obviously have to be taken into account, such as the risk of more serious accidents due to the fact that the Baillieston—Newhouse stretch is unrestricted by a speed limit whereas through Harthill itself there is a speed limit. There is the question of whether there are pedestrian footpaths, railings and so forth, the minor roads that are coining into the area, the usage of the road, the amount of local traffic as compared with medium and long distance traffic, and the amount of heavy traffic turning into the road. All this had to be taken into consideration. The hon. Lady mentioned the number of junctions. The difficulty there is that they are junctions of minor roads coming into a major road which is derestricted. All this had to be taken into account.
A decision between two alternatives of this kind can never be very clear-cut, but on the whole the facts in 1957 when the decision was made seem to me to justify the priority given to the Baillieston section.
There is, of course, also the question of cost, which the hon. Lady mentioned. I think she said that this was done because it was cheaper. It is true that it was a little cheaper—about one-tenth cheaper—but the costs have changed so much—there are also the additional costs concerned with the minor roads which come into the main road—that it may well be that the costs of the two roads, which have gone up very considerably since they were calculated, will turn out to be much the same.
But it was not primarily on the basis of costs that it was done. It was certainly partly on the cost incidence to accident rate ratio that the decision was taken, and for the other reasons that I have mentioned.
I would just say in conclusion that, while we gave preference in time to the Baillieston—Newhouse section, we agree with the hon. Lady that the Harthill bypass should be authorised as soon as possible, and I can give her the assurance that it is our intention to press on with the preliminary stages as quickly as possible.

Orders of the Day — SOCIAL SERVICES

2.17 a.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: I have notified the Home Secretary and sent him particulars about a constituency case which I desire to raise. I shall in the course of my remarks be quoting, no doubt, a number of other examples from my constituency. I want to make it clear at once that I am perfectly well aware that had I wished to deal with these cases piecemeal I should have had the most courteous attention from the Minister and his Department in dealing with each of them, and there would be no advantage in dealing with them publicly unless I wanted to make a rather wider case.
My case and appeal to the Home Secretary tonight is that the time has come for a lead from him to indicate that as Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Home Department he is prepared to play a much more energetic rôle in the political co-ordination of the welfare services, that there is an opportunity open to him now to enable the Home Office to play a much more positive rôle in our welfare services instead of the more negative rôle of waiting until citizens are in trouble and then looking after them while they are locked up.
I shall not attempt to traverse again the ground of example and argument to demonstrate to the Home Secretary that there are large parts of London and, as I have since gathered from colleagues of mine, portions of other great cities where the welfare services have to a large extent broken down and where there is a large measure of social breakdown which requires energetic action. The Home Secretary has already replied encouragingly to me on representations that I have made on this subject.
The letter which I sent to him previous to this debate was prepared, strangely enough, by a citizens' advice bureau. The letter which the bureau sent to me said:
We assisted this old lady of almost 72 to write to you regarding the trouble between herself and her West Indian landlady. We know the lady very well and, together with the West Indies Migrant Services Division, the Welfare Officer of the Paddington Public Health Department, and a number of the Mayor's Committee, we have been trying to assist her in her difficulties.
At the present time, she tells us that she is too frightened to return to her home during

the night and has spent several evenings on Paddington Station when friends could not put her up. We do feel that she is suffering very badly at the present time, and we should be very grateful if you think you could in any way assist her to be re-housed.
That short letter is a clear summary of the complications that can ensue and the need for co-ordination between different departments. It seems to me almost a counsel of despair, and a lamentable thing, that the C.A.B. should write to me and say that it has failed in every way to solve this old lady's problem and ask me to get her rehoused, because it ought to know that a Member of Parliament has no influence and no standing in the matter of rehousing people.
Furthermore, we are faced with the situation in which this would be a victory for the landlady. We should be rehousing this old lady because she was being terrorised and had to spend the night on Paddington Station. That means that the landlady would get vacant possession and the thing she has been trying to get—an increase in income at the expense of the good landlord who treats his tenants properly.
The first thing that occurs to me is that it is necessary to re-establish order. The first thing required is to send the police into the house to make it perfectly clear what the law is on this matter and to see that the old lady can get safe access to her own controlled and uncontested tenancy in her own home. If I am to plead with the Home Secretary to undertake this co-ordination of welfare services, surely the first thing is a more positive role for the police to play, because the police primus inter pares should be among the agents of the Welfare State.
They would be much happier in their work if they had more positive tasks to do. The Home Secretary will be aware of the implications of this very delicate situation. The police, as we know, have a very difficult task in this matter of racial tensions, but I am certain that it is not right that all the work that has gone into improving racial relations, all the patient work that has been devoted to get better understanding, should be put in jeopardy because of the behaviour of one avaricious and rapacious old woman. It is right to risk raising this matter


publicly in order to say that a bad landlord, whatever the colour of his skin, should be warned of the consequences of his actions if he makes the life of his tenants unbearable.
I want to develop the question of the police attitude to the problems of racial antagonism because, as the situation is at present, they get into trouble whatever they do. Earlier this week Her Majesty's Government were apologising to the Government of Ghana, but there are some people who deserve apologies and do not get them.
A few months ago I was by chance in the Portobello Road on a Saturday afternoon when an open-air meeting was being held at which the characters of passers by were being assailed by an individual preaching racial hatred. I have no objection to people at Speakers' Corner saying what they like, but to intrude on a thoroughfare where people have to go about their business is another matter. I know that today the British Caribbean Association has decided to ask the Government to introduce legislation on this subject in the next Session.

Sir James Duncan: I used to be the Member for North Kensington. It has been a public meeting place for donkeys' years.

Mr. Parkin: That is to some extent true, and I accept the expertise of the hon. Member. I am grateful for the support he has given me on previous occasions when I have been dealing with this subject. But in this particular case it seemed to me that the meeting was intruding on people and that it was not a meeting that was available for those who chose to attend it.
Let me develop the point of how the meeting was conducted. There was an indifferent audience so long as the speaker was making a theoretical case. How he enlarged his audience was by insulting individuals passing by, and there is a point where the police in those circumstances should be instructed to stop the meeting. I will quote one example of what happened. An old lady with her shopping bag full of vegetables, stooped shoulders, was shuffling along the road. She heard words from the speaker which made her hardly believe her own ears. She went up and listened

and then pointed towards him and said something about Nazism, and he said, "You filthy old Jewish cow, get back to Tel-Aviv."
After that I approached the police officer standing near the speaker and said: "I wish to make a complaint that this man is inciting disorder by insulting people in the street." The police officer said. "If you do not like it you can go away." I do not want to give any particular gloss to that remark. It was said in reasonably good humour, and it is true that I could go away. It is also true that shortly afterwards the speaker packed up and went away. Several passers-by stopped and told me they were glad I had made a protest because they suffered a good deal from this sort of thing. What the old lady said in a strong refugee accent was, "If I was a Jew I do not know what I should think, but I am a Catholic and I had to leave Hitler because of this, and now I find it here."
I could go away, true, but where could that old lady go? She lives there. We were glad to give her a home. I hope we are still proud and glad to let her feel she has a home in this country. I submit to the Home Secretary that it would help if he gave the police instructions that when an open-air speaker leaves the theory, doctrine, and argument and begins to attack individuals with personal insults it is right to warn him that he must either cease or close the meeting. I do not think that that is an intrusion on personal freedom.

Sir Leslie Plumber: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that all the Home Secretary has to do is to 'bring to the attention of the police the Public Order Act, 1945, which specifically gives the police power to interfere when people are being insulted in this way?

Mr. Parkin: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the powers are there, but much depends—I do not want to digress into a debate on racial tension or the colour bar—on the initiative taken by the Home Secretary himself in giving a lead to the police so that they take positive action. I want him to give a directive to the police that they must use the powers which they now have to deal with this landlord who has made this old lady's life a misery and with


people who take advantage of the situation.
I am well aware that there are people willing to snatch at this story about one bad landlord and to use it for propaganda purposes in the interests of a cause which would not get support from any hon. Member, but it seems to me that the police must take an equally strong line in dealing with any situation in areas of this kind where tension can develop.
There is something else which could help this old lady, and that is a tenants' association. Tenants' associations have been formed in some London boroughs and have already been very successful. There is one in my constituency. It has 400 members and it conducts its affairs energetically and effectively. But it is rather terrifying to discover that in a certain area all the normal processes of government, central and local, have broken down and are being conducted by an independent organisation. I say "terrifying" because not all of them are well conducted.
It is encouraging to find one which has sprung to life spontaneously and which is dealing with the situation well, but it has obvious dangers and the Home Secretary has received a letter from one to say that it is tired of asking for police protection for the tenants and that it is now conducting its own policing of the tenants who are exploited by landlords in that area. Here we have an interesting case of an association, which was formed to combat the evils of the noisy and vicious clubs and even to promote an activity in which it could easily have become anti-immigrant, finding that if it is to do its job properly, it has to look after the interests of a large number of coloured tenants who are being exploited by the landlords.
The case for more co-ordination of the welfare services has been made and accepted. The Home Secretary himself has written to me several times since last I approached him on this subject in the House. The Younghusband Report its having its effect and welfare officers themselves have got together and are co-ordinating their work well in advance of any advice which might be offered by amateurs like myself.
The London County Council has an admirable system of drawing up guides which in different divisions cover the activities of all welfare organisations, official and unofficial, subsidised and voluntary, with the names, addresses, office and functions of all of them—London County Council M 107. I should like to think that a copy of that guide was in regular use in every police station. I should like to think that policemen were encouraged to help people to go to those branches of the welfare services which are open to them.
What I want to see, and what I am pleading for tonight, is more political coordination. I want to know what happens to the information which is collected. I mentioned clubs, and it is not long since two hon. Members for Paddington constituencies waited on the right hon. Gentleman and discussed with him the difficulties facing the Borough of Paddington. He will know that the Borough of Paddington has made other representations to the Home Office not unconnected with this evil.
There is the problem of advertisements in shops for prostitution. There has been an appalling and scandalous development in Paddington. The shop windows are full of the most precise information, giving measurements and details of perversions that are available, and apparently there is nothing that the town clerk can advise his borough council to do in the matter. In despair the council has written to Members of Parliament for the borough, and they have approached the Home Secretary. If he were willing to introduce legislation to deal with that problem, I have no doubt that this House would pass it through with the minimum of delay and would be willing to sit late to permit it to go through. I am sure that he has only to ask for all the powers that he wants and he will get them, but he must accept that this is a development—which I hope he did not foresee—about which he was warned at the time because of a partial attack he made on another problem.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the annual report of the medical officer of health for Paddington there is revealed a startling increase in the number of cases of venereal disease, and


a steep increase in the number of people suffering from gonorrhoea going for treatment at St. Mary's Hospital? Of course, this is not a notifiable disease, and no precise statistics are available. There is a comment that it is thought that a few promiscuous women are responsible for the spread of the disease, but what an appalling situation with which to be faced, that in these days this disease should now be increasing. There is no reason why it cannot be conquered and overcome. Where does the co-ordination come in? Where does the information find its way to so that there can be a political study?
When I last appealed to the Home Secretary on this subject I asked him to designate certain areas of social breakdown, drawing a parallel between the areas of economic breakdown which were designated for special treatment in the days of the depression and widespread unemployment. It was an idea which was not turned down by the Home Secretary, but I do not know how far he has got with it. If he has got any further, he ought to tell us what he is going to do. What would be the tests for such an area of breakdown?
The last time I spoke I gave examples of the large numbers of children in the care of local authorities.
The last report of the medical officer of health, to which I referred a moment ago, showed a considerable increase in the number of suicides in the Borough of Paddington. Interesting enough, the high figures for suicides are in the wealthier wards of the borough, not in the poorest. The poorest people manage to survive. It seems that suicide is a middle-class affliction, but there must obviously be some special feeling of not belonging, or some special sense of loneliness or breakdown in an area like ours for us to be distinguished in this unfortunate way. Who looks at it to try to find out what is the remedy?
The co-ordination of welfare work is making enormous progress, but we have still to hear about political progress. Surely it must be obvious to hon. Members how difficult it is for us to discuss one subject in isolation. Later on a number of my hon. Friends, I believe, will speak about housing difficulties in their constituencies in London. Yet how can

one discuss a comprehensive plan for housing? How can one get at the root of the housing problem unless one is prepared to discuss also an employment policy for London? If we are going to discuss an employment policy, the planning or the guidance, by whatever means available—incentive or control—of industries, some sort of decision must be made as to whether we can afford unskilled industries in the London area as well as the enormous number of skilled jobs required to service a capital city.
That, of course, links up with the job of the education authorities to train people for jobs. We must discuss, first, which people we are prepared to continue to house in London. Surely there must be some co-ordination with the Ministry of Transport. We have to decide which are the people whom we desire to house in the centre of London. Are they to be only the people who have to do the servicing, the semi-skilled jobs? Which of them are we prepared to transport from the outer ring to work inside London?
The two problems are inextricably linked, and it needs a Minister of the calibre and status of the Home Secretary to deal with the matter. We have debates from time to time on the conditions of old people, but, of course, it is not possible to discuss old-age pensions unless we discuss housing and it is not possible to discuss the housing of old people without discussing the supplementation of their pensions and the special cost of living index that would be desirable in different parts of the country.
The Minister of Housing is also the Minister of Local Government, but local authorities are themselves the agents for many departments of the welfare services and their experiences ought to be fed back to some centre point. My reason for insisting that it is the Home Secretary and not just one of the welfare departments who might be made the overlord is this. I want to make this additional proposal tonight which I embodied briefly in a Question and to which I received a not unfavourable reply.
Would it not be a useful thing if once a year, in the same way that we have a Defence White Paper followed by a


discussion of individual Service Estimates and an economic survey with a general examination of how we are doing economically, followed by a general debate, before we get down to the Budget, the Finance Bill and the details—would it not be a good thing if the Secretary of State for the Home Department were able to introduce a social survey covering the whole range of social services which could be debated in general as a matter of co-ordination and followed by debates on individual Estimates dealing with branches of the welfare service—a sort of grand design, an annual assessment of how we are doing in dealing with such problems?
The first of those surveys to be published would be a very fascinating document because, of course, it would mean, if a clear view were to be presented, examining the motivations which were behind the original institution of the particular social services and seeing how far these motivations were valid today and how far they had been changed. We could examine, for example, the original motivation concerning council houses and whether it was necessary to change our concept completely of council houses—should there be mixed users, are the councils to be developers and should they be enabled to make the enormous cost of land earn its own living by putting the lower storeys into use as shops and offices and thus getting the sites above them for nothing and only having to pay for the extra steel construction involved in high building. How can such a subject be discussed except in relation to others and except under the guidance of one of the senior Ministers?
The original motivation of retirement pensions, at least in the eyes of the trade union movement and the Labour Party, was to get people off the labour market at a time when it was said—I said it myself in this House—that we in the Labour Party took it for granted and did not give the second thoughts which we ought to have given in 1945; so much was the desire to see the retirement pension and the desire to see the end of a system by which old-age pensioners getting 10s. a week were kept in employment while their own sons were sacked. Those old days have gone. We have learned a lot about geriatrics

and ways of keeping people happy during a much more prolonged old age.
What was the original motivation of the family allowance? Whatever it was, it does not apply today. There is no need today to encourage large families, there are plenty of people who are able and glad to raise them. But there is a case for looking at the position of young married couples with one child because they are the people who are in the worst financial difficulty. The woman has ceased working and they have to pay the highest rents.
These things should be debated, not because some back bench Member gets an opportunity to raise the matter on the Appropriation Bill but as part of a debate every year to see how well we are doing in each of the welfare services; how the resources ought to be deployed and how much co-ordinating Ministers are able to bring strong political directives and say that there must be more measures and subsidies in certain areas to deal with bad signs as they begin to develop, as is the case in my constituency and in other parts of west London.
My final argument in support of my proposal is that it will, I hope, satisfy hon. Members who for a long time have been trying to find a way to get better control by the House of Commons over Estimates and public expenditure. It would enable them to see in one prospectus the proportion of the national income being spent on the social services and to see that it was properly spent. Perhaps this is one of the most important arguments in favour of the proposal because there are anxieties about this on both sides of the House but from different angles. Hon. Members on this side of the House have grave doubts whether the affluent society is developing in the right way. We think that the wrong kind of things may be advertised and people will be taught to demand luxuries when they have not the necessities. We should like to see them demanding their own front door and decent plumbing inside the house with a much greater insistence. We fear that if the great power of advertising does succeed in laying spurious attractions before a large part of the population instead of the basic necessities of the social services, it may be more difficult to sustain the social services at their present level.
I am not pretending to take a party line about this matter. Both parties have changed and developed their views about the social services. But there is a certain relentless economic propaganda pressure against more public expenditure which ought to be brought out into the open and the only way to do that is to have an annual debate along the lines I have suggested.

2.50 a.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): By leave of the House, I should like briefly to reply to the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), who has in fact continued a debate he initiated on a similar occasion on 16th March. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary replied briefly and said he would examine the arguments put forward by the hon. Member and reply to them, which he did, by letters, to which the hon. Member has referred.
I shall bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend what the hon. Member has Kid tonight. There is a difficulty, as he will appreciate, that this is a very wide-ranging debate. He asked for a co-ordinating Minister, or overlord, for the social services, who could take responsibility for all these things. In practice, that does happen through the interlocking of Government Departments and Ministerial committees. It is more difficult for any individual Minister to reply to the different problems the hon. Member has raised, but, before returning to the general issue, I should like to deal with four points the raised which are the responsibility of the Home Office.
He mentioned, first, the case of a constituent about whom he wrote to my right hon. Friend on 23rd July, a lady who had to resort to sleeping at Paddington Station. I think that a very tragic case. To what extent my right hon. Friend or his colleagues can help, remains for consideration, but my right hon. Friend is asking the Commissioner of Police to look into the case to see whether any police action is possible. The hon. Member will appreciate that, unless some criminal offence is involved, the extent to which the police can intervene in disputes between landlord and tenant is limited, but I shall undertake to see that

the case is looked into and whether any other action can be taken.
As to the meeting in Portobello Road, that is a matter of which I have not had previous notice and which my right hon. Friend would prefer to leave to the Commissioner of Police, to whose notice I shall see that it is brought. He raised two other matters—

Sir J. Duncan: My right hon. Friend will recognise that Portobello Road is a place where rough words are often used. In fact, I have had everything thrown at me in my time there. It is the sort of place where one has to take hard knocks and to receive them. I think the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin), with whose case I have a great deal of sympathy, must realise that with the very great shortage of police today they have to exercise a great deal of tact about these things. I do not think that his case, however rude the language that was used, ought to be taken a great deal of notice of. I have had the same sort of thing hurled at me many times.

Mr. Parkin: Of course, the ex-Member for the area is no longer there. My complaint was that the old lady had to go on living there, but three policemen were on continuous duty and two could have helped if they had instructions to get in early before trouble started.

Mr. Vosper: I have not had the experience of the Portobello Road which my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) has had, but there is much in what he has said. It would be better to ask the Commissioner to take notice of the point which has been raised.
The hon. Member for Paddington, North mentioned the problem of clubs, which I realise is a problem in his constituency and in neighbouring constituencies. It is a matter on which I personally receive representations. I cannot go further tonight than to say that the representations made by the hon. Member and his colleagues on that occasion have been taken into account. In the legislation which my right hon. Friend hopes shortly to bring before the House, I do not think the hon. Member will find himself disappointed about the extent to which it will deal with the points problems he had in mind and which are of such concern in Paddington.
He also raised a matter arising from the Street Offences Act. I think he will understand that the purpose of the Act was to clear the streets. Speaking from the point of view of Paddington, if my information is correct, the Act has been particularly successful in that respect. He quite rightly went on to suggest that the advertising nuisance, to which the attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn, arises from that. It is a much more difficult problem to tackle than the problem of street offences. We will examine that further, but I cannot give an assurance that it is capable of solution because of the difficulty of determining what might be an offensive advertisement and what might not.
The hon. Member feels that the social services, though excellent in themselves, are to some extent unco-ordinated and sometimes directed at the individual rather than the family. A criticism which has often been made is that the social services do not regard the family as a unit but that each is directed at an individual member of the family or some aspect of him and that on occasions they may be at cross-purposes. At times there may be some substance in that criticism. I speak with experience of three Government Departments with responsibility for social services. But I think the hon. Member will not suggest that no action has been taken. As long ago as 1950 the Home Office took the lead, with the Ministries of Health and Education, in sending a circular to all major local authorities requesting that a designated officer be appointed for co-ordinating activities in child welfare. That is a specific example of co-ordination in the social services.
The Younghusband Report accepted that there had been a high degree of co-ordination and referred specifically to the development of child welfare. It found that practically every major local authority had set up co-ordinating machinery and had appointed a designated officer. The Committee recommended further co-ordination. That has been under consideration by the Government, and I can assure the hon. Member that he will not have long to wait before he sees some news about the conclusions reached.
He suggested tonight, as he did in a Question to my right hon. Friend, that

there should be a social survey equivalent to the Economic Survey or the Defence White Paper. As he said, my right hon. Friend gave him a favourable response to that Question and undertook to consider the suggestion—and that is being done; but to produce a social survey on the lines of the Economic Survey would be a major undertaking. If he had had any experience of the machinery behind the production of the Economic Survey he would know what I mean. This is therefore not a matter on which the Government could give an early decision; it involves the Treasury, the Home Office, and the Ministries of Health, Pensions and National Insurance, and Education, if not Labour, too.
If a social survey of that kind were to be comprehensive, it would involve much work and considerable expense. While my right hon. Friend is considering it, it will take some time to consider it and it is not a development which could be undertaken lightly.
In general, while it is possibly difficult for one Minister to answer such a wide-ranging debate as the hon. Member has initiated, this does not mean that Departments and Ministers do not discuss and co-ordinate matters which require the interest of more than one Department. Government machinery provides specifically for that problem. I am always impressed by the fact that visitors from overseas are in their turn impressed by the extent to which our social services have developed. No Minister would suggest for a moment that that development has reached its conclusion, nor would I suggest that the co-ordination is perfect. We are striving to improve the co-ordination and there has been much improvement in this respect over the last ten years.
When my right hon. Friend replied to the hon. Member in the previous debate, he made quite clear that he, not so much in his capacity as Home Secretary, but as a senior member of Her Majesty's Government, was interested in co-ordinating services on the home and social front. I have plenty of reason to know that that is his concern. I will ask him to study what the hon. Member has said and in so far as it is relevant, I will bring it to the notice of other Ministers and Government Departments concerned. Over and above


that, I accept that there is a continuing need for the co-ordination and development of the social services. Any points that the hon. Member has raised in respect of his own constituency I will cause to be examined by the Minister concerned.

Mr. Richard Marsh: One point raised by my hon. Friend which has important repercussions is the question of the growth of the number of cases of venereal disease, which has been quoted as a particular problem in Paddington but which is becoming a serious social problem and which until about 1957, under Defence Regulation 33B, was the specific responsibility of the Home Office. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has had notice of this, but has he any comment to make on this problem and the responsibility which his Department has exercised concerning it in the past and which it may well consider exercising again?

Mr. Vosper: It is common knowledge and beyond dispute that the increase in the incidence to which reference has been made is borne out and is something that disturbs my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Health or his successor. In so far as Home Office responsibility is concerned, I will look at the point. I have not had notice of it, nor do I know to what extent the Home Office can help. I would not want to dispute in any way the seriousness of what the hon. Member has said in that connection.

Orders of the Day — CHIEF CONSTABLE, KILMARNOCK (APPOINTMENT)

3.2 a.m.

Mr. William Ross: The measure of the importance of the subject that I wish to raise at 3 o'clock in the morning can be judged that we have in his place the Secretary of State for Scotland, probably one of the most harassed Members of the Cabinet. This shows a dedication to duty and the sense of importance of the Minister's decision.
It was only just over a week ago that there burst upon Kilmarnock something which has given rise to a measure of publicity that we could have done without. We have even managed to inspire a second leader in The Times today. Normally, we can get all the favourable publicity we want in Kilmarnock through our football team and through the very subject of this debate, Kilmarnock's police. When Kilmarnock is mentioned in police circles, it is immediately noted and famed. Its fame recurs in respect of its proud record for traffic and accidents.
Here is a burgh straddling one of the main roads from Glasgow to the coast, the A.7. For three years, there was not one fatal accident there, despite all the traffic that poured down. Praise has been given to Kilmarnock police in recent years for the burgh's record and service. It comes suddenly as a surprise, therefore, to find the Secretary of State issuing an ultimatum to that police authority stating that if it has not done a certain thing by 15th August, in just over a fortnight's time, the right hon. Gentleman will construe it as being in breach of its statutory obligations, that he will not extend the current three months' term, which ends on 15th August, of the deputy chief constable and that thereby Kilmarnock will have a police force—if, indeed, it has a police force, which I doubt, if the right hon. Gentleman does that—that is not being efficiently administered and run. Finally, the right hon. Gentleman says that he will withhold the police grant.
This is a serious situation. It arises out of an inevitable clash of interests and good intentions on the part of the local authority and on the part of the central authority and it must be resolved, and


resolved soon, by the Government in cooperation with local authorities. What has happened in Kilmarnock we have seen approaching and disappearing in other places. It is happening in England and it is happening in Wales—all over the country. Where there is a clash of interest between the local and the central authority, that is a very important business. Bath are charged with responsibility, but let us remember this, that the police authority is charged with all the functions of the administration and well running of the police force, not the Secretary of State for Scotland. In discharging its part in the election of a chief constable it bears that in mind. The Secretary of State for Scotland in Scotland must approve any appointment of a chief constable.
When on 15th May this year the Chief Constable of Kilmarnock resigned because of age, the local authority saw the Secretary of State's Department, agreed on how it should go about the business, went back to the Secretary of State, who gave the suggested lead, and then it went back to the actual election of the chief constable. Unanimously Kilmarnock Town Council, which consists of 13 Labour and 11 Conservative or Independent members, decided on a local man. Immediately we got the reaction of the Secretary of State, drawing attention once again to his statement in 1958, giving as guidance to local authorities that they should look beyond their own borders for a chief constable.
His reason for that was that we needed fresh blood and new thought; we needed to beware the fact that there might be a certain measure of reluctance on the part of a local man promoted to deal with disciplinary matters. That is very real. There is no doubt about that. There is a certain measure of importance about that, but then again there is equally the fact that there was a unanimous recommendation from the council, which knows its responsibilities, a council which has been praised by the Secretary of State himself in the past for its work in other fields, and praised by the Chief Inspector.
Even as the right hon. Gentleman is acting with the best intentions, so, too, is Kilmarnock Town Council. I cannot believe it picked, as The Times says, a man it wished to reward, but the man it thought was the best man for the job.
I want to cut my speech very short. I think this is a very grave situation which is arising. The pity was that the day before that letter was written by the Secretary of State, and before it received it, Kilmarnock Town Council had a meeting and realised the gravity of the position and knew it could not carry on and was, indeed, on the point of asking the Secretary of State for a meeting and also for an extension of the ultimatum date, 15th August, which for many reasons is, to my mind, out of the question. I would think that an extension by a month or two months would enable the Secretary of State to rethink his position and it would equally enable Kilmarnock Town Council to rethink its position before that meeting. The fact is, of course, that Kilmarnock, like this House, goes on holiday at the weekend, so we can well appreciate the impossibility of trying to get the council together in the circumstances. This is the position we want resolved, and from which we need to draw lessons.
I would say about the Secretary of State that he has dealt with this matter, as everyone else has, not on personalities. The man who was Deputy Chief Constable of Kilmarnock is a fine man recognised for his good work and wide experience in the police service. The Chief Inspector has said that he is a man who has done good work. So there is no reflection upon him. It is a question of principle, a question of the outsider and the local man. I would remind the Secretary of State of what he said at Tullyallan when he made that statement, which was:
Clearly no hard and fast rule can be drawn.
It is because of the knowledge that Glasgow and Lanarkshire and other places are allowed local men that it is felt that somehow or other Kilmarnock does not deserve to be unfairly treated. It co-operated with the Scottish Department in connection with amalgamation, and then it was not for three months but for over a year that a deputy carried on as chief constable. The efficiency of the police did not suffer. It is not suffering now. I do not think that it would suffer if the Secretary of State extended this period of deputy chief constableship and gave ample time for a meeting with himself or his officials in order to have


the position resolved. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do something about this last point.

3 11 a.m.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): I greatly appreciate the very moderate and 'balanced way in which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has raised this difficult a id important question. I greatly regret that this difference of opinion has arisen between the police authority in Kilmarnock and myself and I should like to make it clear, first, that, as the hon. Member has said, this difference of opinion does not imply any reflection on the Kilmarnock police force or upon the officer whom the Kilmarnock authority wishes to appoint as chief constable. This officer has a long record of excellent service.
The difference is on a difficult matter of principle. Chief constables in Scotland are appointed by local police authorities, but the appointment is subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. It is, of course, extremely important to the whole principle of a local police force that there should be the minimum interference with local police authorities from the centre, but this provision that the appointment of chief constables requires the approval in Scotland of the Secretary of State and in England of the Home Secretary is an obviously desirable one and I understand it has always had the approval of all parties in the House of Commons.
Some little time ago I took the opportunity in a speech I was making in public to ask police authorities to consider very carefully whether appointments to the office of chief constable of an officer who has spent all or most of his service in the force concerned is in general desirable. I pointed out that no absolutely hard and fast rule could be drawn but that, in the light of the responsibilities of the post, chief constables should be men with both width of experience and an open and fresh approach and that in the normal course these qualities are more likely to be found in candidates from other forces than in an officer with long service in the local force with the vacancy. This statement subsequently WAS given wide circulation and I have

made it clear that, unless for exceptional reasons, I would find it very difficult to approve the appointment to chief constable of an officer the main part of whose career had been spent in that force.
When the question of the appointment of a new chief constable in the Kilmarnock force first arose there were the customary consultations between the police authority and my Department. These were followed by a meeting between the authority and my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. At this meeting the position which I have just stated was made clear to the authority.
I should explain that the authority was not pressed to exclude from the short leet the name of the individual whom we are discussing. It did not seem reasonable at that stage, until the candidates had been interviewed, to say categorically whether exceptional circumstances might or might not emerge, but the authority was warned that this in itself did not mean that if it did appoint him I would approve his appointment. Subsequently the Town Council considered a short leet and decided on the appointment of the officer in question. Thereafter a deputation from the Town Council came to see me. In the course of a full and frank discussion I gave my reasons for not favouring this appointment.
After the meeting I gave the fullest attention and the most careful consideration to the points put forward. I was, however, unable to find any exceptional reasons for departing from the point of principle in this case, and, in particular, I had regard to the fact that the retiring chief constable and his predecessor had, apart from a period between 1901 and 1906 in the case of the latter, served all their official life in the Kilmarnock force. These two officers between them had been in charge of it for nearly 40 years in all, and this meant that if the next appointment were not made from outside the force, there would have been no new blood at the top for a very long period indeed.
It may seem a rather harsh attitude to take that a man who has given a long service in a local force should not have the opportunity of holding a senior appointment but I am sure that as a matter of principle there are very strong


reasons against the practice of appointing chief constables from within a force.
I hope the House will forgive if I state very briefly the principles involved, because this matter is of wider interest. The appointment of a chief constable is of more than purely local significance—above all at a time when similarity of methods and close co-operation between police forces is so essential in the fight against criminals who are in no way respectors of the boundaries between police areas. Many points of importance are involved, including the point of view of the local force itself.
A chief constable, as was pointed out in the leading article this morning which has been referred to, has disciplinary and semi-judicial duties in regard to the men under him which demand a large degree of personal detachment. It is no reflection on any individual to say that this particular attribute is more likely to be present in an officer who has not served alongside the men under his command for a great many years. There is also some risk of local practices growing up which differ in inconvenient, if not undesirable, ways from practices in other parts of the country. There are, of course, excellent refresher courses and training schemes designed to help to avoid this, but the fact remains that some degree of cross-fertilisation of forces alt the top is very desirable.
I thought it right to explain briefly to the House the principles which I have in mind in dealing with this question. I now turn to what the hon. Gentleman said about immediate problems of procedure.
The present position is that the town council has just asked me two things: first, to receive a deputation to submit additional reasons for a local appointment; and, second, to approve an extension of the three-month period during

which the deputy chief constable continues to hold that appointment.
On the first point, I propose to reply—I have not had much time to do so yet—that I doubt whether there would be any point in having a further meeting but that if the council feels that there is new information which it is essential to place before me I am, of course, willing to arrange a meeting with officers of my Department who would report to me fully.

Mr. Ross: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not rule out, after that meeting, a meeting with the council or with the council and myself on another case.

Mr. Maclay: No. If it proved necessary, arising out of that meeting, I would do that at a time which could be conveniently arranged.
On the second point, the hon. Gentleman has represented strongly in his speech that it would be unreasonable not to give my consent to an extension of the period during which the deputy chief constable can act, having particular regard to the fact that this is the local holiday season. In order that there shall be no question of a matter of principle of this importance not being fully considered by all concerned, I am prepared to give my consent for an extension of one month after 15th August, above all because of the difficulties created by the local holiday period. It must, however, be clearly understood that this concession does not imply that I am in any way resiling from the position on principle that I have taken in this matter.
I hope that, with what I have now said, the hon. Member will feel that in this matter of grave difficulty and importance I am taking the most reasonable action that I can in the circumstances.

Orders of the Day — SOUTHERN RHODESIA

3.20 a.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: As we continue our debate, a desperately serious situation is developing in Southern Rhodesia. At 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, we heard that in Bulawayo a crowd of 7,000 Africans refused to disperse when called upon to do so by the police and there was a not developing. In fact, violence was used by the police against the crowd. In fact, we understand that a police spokesman said that the situation was developing into a military operation.
Then, just about an hour ago, we heard that the prosecutors were working in shifts applying for remands, because 250 people were appearing before the Bulawayo magistrates' court. and that many of these Africans who appeared had bruises on their faces and were obviously suffering from violence as a result of police action. We also understand that at 10 p.m. on Tuesday the death roll in Bulawayo alone had reached nine.
This series of incidents in Bulawayo over the last 24 hours is not an isolated event. It arises because of the actions of the Southern Rhodesian Government going back over many years. Last year, in February, a state of emergency was announced, and many leaders of the then prominent African National Congress were arrested and thrown into prison without trial. Subsequently, the Southern Rhodesian Government introduced legislation which gave it tremendous powers of repression over the African people in Southern Rhodesia.
Now we have seen in the last few weeks action being taken by the Southern Rhodesian Government against the National Democratic Party, which represents the wishes of the overwhelming mass of the African people in that country, as well as having many European members within its ranks. It is not a racialist party. It is a party which has European supporters and sympathisers as well as African.
It is well known on both sides of this House that the leaders of the National Democratic Party are moderate men. Indeed, the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said on 3rd June in a debate in this House that everyone had been im-

pressed by the calibre of the members of the party who had been here engaged in discussions with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. We also understand that the Prime Minister himself, when he was in Rhodesia on his African tour, met many of the leaders of these political organisations and was very impressed by their calibre.
These men are now being thrown into prison by the action of the Southern Rhodesian Government. We are concerned in this, and when I say "we" I am not talking only of this side of the House, for I know that this is something which concerns hon. Members on both sides. Back benchers on both sides are disturbed by events in Southern Rhodesia and want Her Majesty's Government to take some action to prevent the situation becoming more serious.
We are concerned about the Colony of Southern Rhodesia. It is not an independent dominion. The British Government still have reserve powers which, in these circumstances, need to be exercised to prevent the situation from becoming worse. We are also concerned because, on the initiative of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, there were constitutional discussions with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
It so happens that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia did not make any progress at all in his efforts to secure the removal of the protective clauses in the Constitution. That, I am glad to say, was revealed by the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the debate on 3rd June. We appreciate that Her Majesty's Government have been taking an excellent line in this matter. They have refused to allow this concession demanded by Sir Edgar Whitehead to be allowed and during the period when this question of the Reserve Powers in the Constitution was being discussed, the Secretary of State, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, entered into consultations with the leaders of the National Democratic Party.
Leaders of the N.D.P. were met by the Secretary of State and their representations were listened to very courteously, so the United Kingdom Government have established a direct relationship with the National Democratic Party in Southern Rhodesia, and it is only right


and proper that they should do that because we in Britain are the protecting Power over the two-and-a-half million Africans in Southern Rhodesia who look to the United Kingdom to protect them against the actions of a white dictatorship in their midst. So we are very much involved in this situation. We are involved because we have the power over the Constitution and because we have entered into this direct negotiation with the leaders of the N.D.P. who have now been thrown into prison by the Southern Rhodesian Government.
We now have a most eloquent appeal, given yesterday, by leaders of the two biggest political parties in Southern Rhodesia, the National Democratic Party, representing almost all the Africans in the territory, and the Central Africa Party, representing Africans and European supporters and represented by a former Prime Minister, Mr. Garfield Todd. These leaders have issued a statement which they sent yesterday, 26th July, to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. If the House will bear with me I will read it in full because it is an important and historic document:
For some years we have pleaded with our Governments to extend the franchise so that we might enjoy political stability in Central Africa. The United Federal Party governments, however, have chosen to play politics with the even more reactionary Dominion Party and have paid scant attention to the voice of eight millions of voteless people. When protests have been made our Governments have used the pretext of maintaining law and order to stamp out criticism and dissent, and have not hesitated even to use their military might to do this. Government policies are now maintained by force of arms and are directly responsible far the present unrest.
Ranged against the great mass of our people are two hundred thousand whites, with police and army and air force: Four per cent. of our population, in the name of civilization, have ranged themselves against the great body of people of our country, refusing liberty, denying justice and flouting the lessons of history.
It is imperative that Her Majesty's Government accept the responsibility for taking immediate action to establish a new and democratic regime in Central Africa. At present Britain is supporting an undemocratic and unjust form of government which, if left to itself, must soon disintegrate, causing widespread suffering to all sections of our people.
If Britain finds herself unwilling to intervene decisively in this situation within her Colonial sphere, a situation in which eighty thousand voters are permitted to govern eight million

by military might, then Her Majesty's Government must state this clearly and now. Those people who are now protesting against their Governments in Central Africa will then know that they must depend on their own strength to gain liberty. We recognise that eventually this would lead to intervention by the United Nations Organisation but that there would be much regrettable and unnecessary suffering before this happened.
We pray that Her Majesty's Government, justly proud of having, in recent years brought some five hundred million people to freedom, will not flinch from the task of upsetting the present régime and of guiding and assisting the establishment of democratic rule by the people of our land.
Because of our deep concern to see harmony between the races and justice and opportunity for all citizens, we ask…

1. That an immediate statement be made to the effect that Her Majesty's Government will intervene in the affairs of Central Africa to establish democratic governments so that the will of the people is implemented.
2. That the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia be set aside and a democratic order substituted for it.
3. That Her Majesty's Government come to immediate agreement with the Federal Government that no troops from the Union of South Africa will be called upon, or permitted to intervene in Central Africa. If South African troops were to be used in Central Africa, it is doubtful if there would be a healing of wounds in the next twenty years.
4. That, following an immediate statement of intent to set aside the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, adequate armed forces should be made available from the United Kingdom to ensure that changes in government are made peacefully. It must be recognised that should British troops be sent to Southern Rhodesia to support the present Government against the people of the country, the prestige of Her Majesty's Government would be so damaged that it would be extremely difficult for Britain to assist in any later attempts to establish a democratic régime.
5. That all necessary measures be taken to bring each of the territories to self-government within the next five years and that elections at the point of self-government should be based upon a universal adult franchise.
6. That immediate moves should be made to transfer powers from the Federal Government to the States. Concurrently with these changes the three territories should be given equal control over what remains of the Federal machine, which should then become the servant of the territories and no longer their master."
I apologise for the length of this document, but it was important that it should be read in full. It is signed by Mr. Enoch Dumbutshena, Mr. Paul Mushonga and Mr. Joshua Nkomo, of the National Democratic Party, and Mr. Garfield Todd on behalf of the Central Africa Party.
It must be unprecedented for a former Prime Minister to lend his hand to an appeal of this description and, therefore, we cannot disregard it or brush it aside. It is a serious appeal and the responsible men who have signed and who support it are aware of the fact that there are now only two possible alternatives in Central Africa. Eventually, the Africans will be running the affairs of Central Africa. Everybody knows that. The only question is how they are to reach that point.
Are they to reach it by peaceful developments which establish friendly relations between members of all racial communities, or are they going to reach that point by violence, bloodshed, disorder, repression which can only engender bitter racial feelings and probably bring a situation in Central Africa similar to that in the Congo, by which we are all absolutely appalled? Those are the alternatives.
It so happens that Britain can exercise a decisive influence in the affairs of Southern Rhodesia. We know the opinion of the House on racial matters and military dictatorship in Africa. We have already recorded it, because on 8th April, 1960, the House unanimously agreed to a Motion condemning apartheid in South Africa and went on to record that the House,
…restates its firm belief that peace and tranquillity in South Africa can only be secured in the long run on the basis of freedom and equality and a full respect for the inherent dignity and humanity of all men."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th April, 1960; Vol. 621, c. 774.]
This is a matter which does not divide but unites the House, because not a single voice was raised against that Motion. It united us on 8th April and I think that it unites us tonight, and not only in relation to South Africa. It should also unite us in relation to the situation in Southern Rhodesia where racialist policies have been pursued for many years and where the Southern Rhodesian Government of Sir Edgar Whitehead, not a Government ruling by consent but with the support of only a tiny minority of the population, is now using military power—witness the statement of the police spokesman yesterday—in order to suppress the people of that territory.
The British Government can act. Our plea tonight is that they should act, and act decisively. We ask that Her Majesty's Government should use their authority to suspend the Southern Rhodesia Constitution so that we can secure peace and good order in that territory and provide a situation in which both races can work together towards a democratic franchise which can give rise to a Government which can rule by consent.
At the moment the Government do not have the consent of the African people. They are overwhelmingly against the Government. The Government do not even have the consent of the European minority. The European minority is less than 10 per cent. of the population, but the Government do not have even the support of that minority.
At the last election the Dominion Opposition Party received more first preference votes than the United Federal Party. The United Federal Party won the election by having a system of transferable votes which gave it a small majority in the Assembly, although it did not have a majority of votes. Since that election the support for the United Federal Party has ebbed away, and now the Dominion Party is gaining in strength every week from that small European population. Sir Edgar Whitehead knows only too well that the Dominion Party has been winning many of his supporters.
The Dominion Party has been coming out with clear statements opposing the policies of the United Federal Party. I have here a copy of the Rhodesia Herald of 29th June. The headline is "Federation a Failure," and there is a policy statement by the Dominion Party. It says:
Federation in its present form has failed…
and it goes on to condemn U.F.P. policies. The Dominion Party now has the support of probably the majority of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia if an election takes place at this time. In those circumstances, when the Government are acting without the consent of the people, when they are using their military power to suppress the aspirations of the people, and are shooting the people down when they demonstrate against the arrest of their leaders, surely


the time has come for the Government to act, and the action which they should take is to suspend the Constitution because the situation is so serious.
The Government may say that the situation is not serious enough to take such a drastic step as suspending the Constitution. May I remind the Government that in October, 1953, they took such action in regard to British Guiana. The White Paper, Cmd. 8980 says:
The conduct of Ministers showed no concern for the true welfare a the Colony and threatened its promise as an orderly state; it had seriously endangered the economic life of the country and had set it on the road to collapse.
That is the situation in Southern Rhodesia today. The Ministers have shown no true regard for the welfare of the Colony.

Mr. Ray Mawby: Nonsense.

Mr. Stonehouse: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been to Southern Rhodesia. If he had, he would know how desperate is the poverty of Africans in Southern Rhodesia; how they are denied access to 53 per cent. of the land, which is reserved for loss than one-tenth of the population; and how in the townships they live in overcrowded reserves. They are not allowed to live in the so-called European areas, and the average wage of an African is only £6 10s. a month. I would be interested to know if the hon. Gentleman could live on that wage.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman said, but I hope that he will not spoil his moderate speech by overstating the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is a considerable authority on these matters, will agree that while by British standards African standards of living may be low in Southern Rhodesia. they nevertheless compare very favourably with those in most other parts of Africa.

Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. Of course, it is a valid point, but the point which I am trying to demonstrate is that if poverty is to be combated—and it does exist—the Africans who have been moved off the African areas by the land consolidation schemes have to be found employment in the towns. If the situa-

tion is to be solved, there must be further industrialisation.
By the action which the Ministers are taking at the moment it will be impossible for the products of that industrialisation to be sold in the territories further north. The African States will, of course, refuse to accept those products coming from a country whose regime they detest. And as is well known in financial circles in Salisbury, it has become increasingly difficult for the Governments of Central Africa to raise loans in the international market because the confidence of the world in the Federation, and in Southern Rhodesia in particular, is not very great.
I submit, therefore, that the point made in relation to British Guiana in 1953 applies with equal validity to the situation in Southern Rhodesia today. If we read further into the White Paper, we see that the Ministers in British Guiana were accused of spreading racial hatred. That is the situation in Southern Rhodesia today where the actions of the Government are not bringing the races together but are separating them.
There are many white settlers in Central Africa, and I am privileged to include many of them among my friends. They want to secure a real understanding with the Africans, the sort of understanding which has been achieved in Tanganyika, but the actions of the Government of Sir Edgar Whitehead are making that very difficult indeed. Indeed, the actions of Sir Edgar Whitehead's Government are putting the lives of some 200,000 Europeans in jeopardy.
Reading further into the White Paper, we see that one of the points made against the Ministers in British Guiana was that they used threats of violence. In Southern Rhodesia the Government are not using just threats of violence but actual violence against the Africans. The leaders of the N.D.P. have been locked up and their followers who have been demonstrating asking for their release have been bashed about by the police. As we heard on the news tonight, they are appearing in the magistrates' court in Bulawayo with bruises, and nine have been shot. This violence and intimidation on the part of the Government are far more serious than the alleged actions of Ministers in British Guiana in 1953.

Mr. Gower: In making this comparison, would the hon. Gentleman draw no distinctions between the Constitution in British Guiana, which was in its experimental and early stages, and Southern Rhodesia where, in practice, there has been self-government for nearly forty years?

Mr. Stonehouse: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is helping my case. In British Guiana there was a Constitution based on universal adult suffrage. Therefore, the Government, even if they had been behaving incorrectly, had had the consent and support of the people as expressed at the General Election. That is not the position in Southern Rhodesia where, as the hon. Gentleman will know, high qualifications have to be possessed before anyone can let on to the electoral roll. That ensures that the tiny electorate of some 50,000 can elect the Government. And the 30 members of the Southern Rhodesia Legislative Assembly are all white and always have been, although the European population has never been over 10 per cent. of the total population. I am grateful to the hon. Member. He has strengthened my point.
The relationship between the Government in Southern Rhodesia and in British Guiana is very similar. Southern Rhodesia is not an independent territory but is subject to the overriding control of the United Kingdom. The point which Mr. Garfield Todd makes is that in the last few years he has tried through every possible constitutional means in Southern Rhodesia to influence tae situation and to progress towards sanity. He has found, however, that the Southern Rhodesian Government are not prepared to make any concessions to enable the will of the people, both white and black, to be properly expressed. So he is making what he appreciates is the list constitutional appeal to the British Government who have the ultimate authority in this repect. We have to pay attention to a former Prime Minister when he makes a plea of that description.
May I finally read the justification of the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, now Lord Chandos. On 22nd October, 1953, he said:
The proposal to suspend the Constitution which Her Majesty's Government are putting

forward is indeed a grave step. Viewed in any light, it is a setback to the principle upon which all political parties in this House are agreed, namely, that our colonial policy should be directed towards giving the peoples in the Colonial Territories an increasing responsibility for the management of their own affairs. But if it be true—and it is true—that in all parts of the House we are firmly and finally committed to this policy, we must be prepared to take risks in carrying it out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1953; Vol. 518, c. 159.]
That was the Colonial Secretary's justification for action in British Guiana. It could be the justification of the present Government for action in Southern Rhodesia.
On that occasion, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Prime Minister, said that the first issue involved was
whether the home Government have produced evidence of a danger in British Guiana so serious as to justify the measures which were taken to meet it. The second is whether those measures were taken prudently and efficiently so as to minimise the loss of life and property and the risk of violence. The third, perhaps underlying it all and almost the most important of all, is whether the Government in the United Kingdom have the right and the duty, even at the cost of the temporary suspension of the democratic Constitution to prevent its reality from being undermined from the misuse of its form. These are really the problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1953: Vol. 518, c. 2268–9.]
If what the present Prime Minister said was relevant to the situation then, the same arguments could be justified in relation to the situation in Southern Rhodesia today.
In December of the same year we had a speech from the then Colonial Secretary, and also by Mr. Henry Hopkinson, now Lord Colyton. We do not always agree with this spokesman of the Conservative Party, but what he said on that occasion was true, and it is true in relation to Southern Rhodesia today. He said:
A climate must be prepared in which democracy will work and flourish…Intimidation which existed before the constitution was suspended, and which exists now, must be suppressed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1953: Vol. 521, c. 1757.]
I apologise to the House for keeping hon. Members so long at the early hour, but the situation in Southern Rhodesia is desperate. It calls for action. The overwhelming mass of the people in Southern Rhodesia, the Africans, are


looking to Britain to protect them against that a white, military dictatorship. There are also probably hundreds, maybe even thousands, of European settlers, ex-constituents of all of us who sit in the Chamber this morning, who are also looking to us to take some action to prevent disaster overtaking Southern Rhodesia. We can act; we are asking the Government to act in order that justice, liberty and, eventually, democracy may be secured in Southern Rhodesia.

3.51 a.m.

Mr. Peter Kirk: I feel that I owe an apology to the House for taking up time at this hour of the morning, but the subject raised by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) is of such importance that I think it right that it should be fully discussed, and all the more because I have general sympathy with the points raised by the hon. Member, although as he will realise, I cannot go with him all the way in what he is asking the Government to do.
I agree with him that the situation in Southern Rhodesia is one which must seriously concern the House. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) pointed out, it has been a self-governing Colony for nearly forty years, we have not abdicated our final responsibility for it and, until we do so, we remain seized of these obligations and any amount of argument about it being a self-governing Colony cannot remove that. Whether we agree with Sir Edgar Whitehead or not, the obligation remains on us to [take responsibility for this situation in which nine people have been killed and many have been arrested. This is not a matter we can let go by without consideration.
I shall not traverse the broad canvas covered by the hon. Member. He probably knows it far better than I do, but I want to speak on this particular incident arising out of the arrest of three leaders of the National Democratic Party of Southern Rhodesia. We have not had in this House, or, as I understand, anywhere, a satisfactory explanation of why those men were arrested at the time when they were in fact in negotiation with the British Colonial Office. I do not know if my right hon. Friend can give an explanation this morning. We know that he is in a very difficult position.
This is an internal matter for the Government of Southern Rhodesia, but nevertheless because we retain these obligations in regard to the situation in Southern Rhodesia, we in this House have a right to know why these men were arrested and why it was thought necessary at this time when discussions were going on about the future of the country, and when we were awaiting the Report of the Monckton Commission, to take action of this kind. Was it because the security of the Southern Rhodesian Government was threatened? If so, how was it threatened? What were they doing to cause their arrest? That is an explanation to which I think we are entitled.
Until we get an explanation it is very difficult for us to condone the subsequent actions of the Southern Rhodesian Government. It is perfectly possible to excuse, although I am not a person to condone violence, or to say it can be justified; nevertheless, it is possible to understand the actions of the Africans in Bulawayo. Naturally they are concened at the course of events which has taken place, which has led to the publication tonight of the documents which the hon. Member read.
I understand, of course, that the document is not one for which the hon. Member can take any responsibility—that is for the people concerned. Where I think I part company from the hon. Member is in some of the conclusions he drew from it. If I remember rightly—I have not got a copy with me, but the hon. Member did me the courtesy of showing me one before this debate—it makes specific reference to the possibility of South African troops intervening in the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia.
If this is true it is a matter of the utmost seriousness for this House. But is it true? I do not know. I should like to know whether the Southern Rhodesian Government have contemplated an appeal for help to the Government of the Union of South Africa. If they have, then I hope that my right hon. Friend will convey to the Government of Southern Rhodesia what I feel is almost the unanimous view of the House—that we should view such a step with the strongest disapproval, to put it mildly.
But I hope that it is not true, because it would be the greatest misfortune for Southern Rhodesia if the very desperate slate of affairs in the Union were in some way to be connected with the self-governing Colony of Rhodesia. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give an assurance on this point. In the contacts which I have with the Colony I have heard nothing to suggest that such a step is possible, but it may be. I think it unlikely, but I should like some assurance about it from my right hon. Friend. One of my hon. Friends says that such a step is very unlikely, and I agree with him, but it is possible and therefore we need to be reassured.
A fundamental point on which I part company from the hon. Member for Wednesbury is the action which Her Majesty's Government should now take. I think that the situation is serious, but the suspension of a constitution which has been in force for forty years is so drastic that I regard it as possibly the ultimate sanction which any Government could impose. The hon. Member very cleverly quoted the example of British Guiana, but there is a great difference between suspending the constitution of British Guiana and the suspension which he proposes here. I was not in the House at the time, nor was he, but I was an active member of the Conservative Party, and as a foreign correspondent I had to cover some of the conferences which arose out of these events in British Guiana.
I did not like what happened, but I was prepared to accept it because everybody knew at the time that when normal constitutional government was restored in British Guiana, the situation would be very much the same as it was before the constitution was suspended. On the contrary, everybody knows that if the constitution of Southern Rhodesia is suspended, that will be the end of an experiment in racial partnership in Central Africa. It may have been a hopeless experiment from the start, but I believed in it, as did many others. Things could never be the same again. I see that the hon. Member for Wednesbury disagrees and I respect the sincerity of his views, as I hope he respects mine.
In Central Africa we have tried to build a racial partnership. So far it

has not been very successful, but I am not prepared to abandon all hope that it will work. There are still possibilities; they are becoming remote, but they still exist. If we suspend the constitution those possibilities will be destroyed and we shall face a situation in which the only alternative is some kind of racial policy. This is a very serious point which needs to be considered before we take the step which the hon. Member asks the Government to take. We must ask ourselves in all seriousness, Is any alternative step available?"
We know that at the time that these gentlemen were arrested they were in the process of talks with the Colonial Office. It is also common knowledge that Sir Edgar Whitehead had earlier said that at some time later this year there should be a conference of all interested parties with a view to a revision of the constitution of Southern Rhodesia.
I suggest that a last attempt should be made, however unfortunate the circumstances may be, to see whether agreement is possible on this point. The Government should call a conference specifically on Southern Rhodesia, without waiting for the Report of the Monckton Commission; they should announce now that they will call such a conference at which all the interested parties will be represented. These will include the United Federal Party, the Dominion Party, the National Democratic Party and any other party which obviously has an interest. As a prerequisite, the leaders of the National Democratic Party now in prison would have to be released to take part in such a conference. I would accept that as perfectly reasonable. Such a conference should take place in London, far removed from the difficulties and bitterness which have now arisen in Southern Rhodesia, on the lines of the Conference now meeting to discuss Nyasaland, to see whether an agreement cannot be worked out. I have not abandoned hope, and I hope that the House has not abandoned hope, of reaching some sort of settlement for Central Africa.
I said that I would be brief but, possibly, I have exceeded the time limit I tried to impose upon myself. Having disagreed with the hon. Member for Wednesbury on the course he proposes, I agree absolutely with him that this


is a matter of great concern to this House. The hon. Member cited the Resolution passed by the House on the policies of the South African Government. We cannot condemn the actions of a Government for which we are not responsible and remain indifferent to the actions of a Government for which, in any sense, we are responsible.
Almost exactly a year ago, in the dying hours of the last Parliament, on a similar Motion on the corresponding Bill last year, we had a debate on the tragedy of the Hola camp. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made a speech which will be remembered by all who were present. My hon. Friend said:
We must be consistent with ourselves everywhere. All Government, all influence of man upon man, rests upon opinion. What we can do in Africa, where we still govern and where we no longer govern, depends upon the opinion which is entertained on the way in which this country acts and the way in which Englishmen act. We cannot, we dare not, in Africa of all places, fall below our own highest standards in the acceptance of responsibility."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1959; Vol. 610, c. 237.]
It is those last words which are the important part.
We have a responsibility here. We must accept it. Whether we agree or disagree on the methods to be adapted, let there be no doubt that the responsibility rests on this House, and let us accept it in the spirit that my hon. Friend suggested a year ago.

4.3 a.m.

Mrs. Judith Hart: First, I welcome the enlightenment and understanding which the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) has shown. I should like to explore one of the avenues that it opened up, one in which a difference was expressed but, I think, falsely expressed. The difference exists in the concept that was put before us that in exercising our responsibility towards the people of Southern Rhodesia, by accepting the suggestion of the suspension of the Constitution, we should be ending any hopes of racial partnership in Southern Rhodesia. I think that the reverse is true.
Let me take hon. Members opposite with me in considering the essential ingredients of the present crisis. We

accept that there is a crisis. Most of us agree that the crisis must be accepted as our responsibility. There have been the disturbances in Bulawayo and the bloodshed which took place there recently and which threatens to take place again if the pattern of events that is followed in Southern Rhodesia is similar to the pattern of events elsewhere in Africa.
There is also the inevitable reaction, which is bound to be a strong one, from the independent African States. We shall have Nigeria, Ghana, Tanganyika and other important elements of African opinion reacting strongly and vigorously against what will inevitably seem to them to be the incipient emergence of another Sharpeville. This is important not only as regards Southern Rhodesia but for the future of the whole Continent of Africa, and, indeed, world peace. We must recognise that Africa is standing on the brink of real war. We must not regard it merely as a colonial or Commonwealth issue, but as a real issue of peace or war.
There are, furthermore, the difficulties that clearly will exist in Southern Rhodesia in the next three or four months with the ban on political meetings and the difficulties that will exist in making any further attempts to spread the participation of Africans in the electoral roll in Southern Rhodesia and in conveying to them and enabling them to discuss, for example, the conclusions of the Monckton Report when, eventually, they become known. These are very real considerations. One can make no further progress in Southern Rhodesia so long as this atmosphere persists, so long a suppression of free political thought and activity is still continuing.
That is the one most urgent factor in the situation. There is another, and that is equally important, and ought not to be under-estimated. It is the reaction of the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia to recent events in the Congo. I think we have got to recognise that the degree of enlightenment shown by the hon. Gentlemen opposite in their approach to this whole problem is understandably not shared by the European settlers in Rhodesia itself. They are thrown into a state of panic by recent events in Africa, particularly in the Congo, and it is not


surprising that, in view of that, the Southern Rhodesian Government are making this apparent attempt to show they feel concern even more strongly than they do about the need to prevent any possible African rising against the Whites of Southern Rhodesia.
Indeed I received a letter this morning from a constituent of mine whose bother is at the moment in Africa—in Kenya, not Southern Rhodesia—and I want to read a couple of sentences from the letter. It says this:
Macmillan's wind of change' speech has let loose forces that he cannot control, and the Belgian Government by its Congo behaviour has accelerated the return to primitive Africa. Yet these wretched Conservatives—
I quote this in no party sense, and in all seriousness—
sitting in the smug security of Westminster are prepared to sacrifice us in Kenya to satisfy some unreasonable sentiment. Don't they realise that by their stupidity they are playing the Communist game? In fact I look on quite a large proportion of them as being fellow travellers.
Hon. Members laugh. I think it is very funny, too, but we have got to realise the difference in attitude between those of us who can look through the historical perspective at events in Africa, at events in Southern Rhodesia, for our point of view of responsibility for coloured and write people in Africa, and the attitude and point of view of the settlers out there who are thrown into a state of complete panic, who can no longer regard what is going on around them with any degree of objectivity or detachment. We have get to realise that there are bound to be profound differences.
It is important to realise that, because there is going to be pretty violent opposition to any suggestion that the responsibility of the British Government to wards ensuring the development towards real democracy in Southern Rhodesia should be exercised in the near future much more strongly. If the suggestion which we have just heard being made by the hon. Member for Gravesend is accepted by the Government, as I thank it will be, if indeed the Government are not able straight away, as I wish they would, to suspend the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia and take the action which is necessary, there is bound to be

tremendous opposition to this from Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, and from official representatives, too.
It is worth noticing that in recent months the High Commissioner for the Federation has been making quite clear what his point of view is on the matters which are to be reported on by the Monckton Commission. In Scotland, the Church of Scotland has been seriously concerned with the fact that Sir Gilbert Rennie has been going round Scotland talking to presbyteries, speaking in public, at political meetings, in favour of the point of view of political issues which are entirely the responsibility of the British people. We can expect that kind of opposition to be exercised further by responsible people in Southern Rhodesia.
I would just end on this note, because I, too, want to be as brief as I can, as many other people have important things to say on this and other matters, even at this early hour of the morning. The issue before us seems to me to be terribly grim and in its essence very simple. It is not whether we go forward to racial partnership or abandon it. Of course we go forward to that partnership, but we do it only by ensuring that progress is allowed to continue. We have to make up our minds whether we take steps to change the situation radically in Southern Rhodesia, whether we change and influence the course of history in Africa, or whether we allow Southern Rhodesia to face what will inevitably be years of bitter suppression.
That is the choice before us. We have to try to convince the settlers of Southern Rhodesia that they cannot hope to solve the problems of their part of Africa by reviving old-fashioned 19th century ideas that one can kill political ideals with a gun. That cannot work. We know that it cannot work.
It is vitally important that the Government should take immediate action. It is not only important to the Africans in Southern Rhodesia, and not only important to European's in Southern Rhodesia, although it is probably their only way out, but it is important to the whole future of Africa. It is important to the future of Britain and to the future of the Commonwealth, because we shall be judged not on resolutions that we


pass in this House on events in Sharpeville and South Africa but by what we do in a crisis which is our responsibility. I hope that both sides of the House will be able so firmly and vigorously to impress their point of view on the Government that we shall see the action which we are urging tonight being taken very early.

4.12 a.m.

Mr. Fenner Brockway: I do not propose to deliver the speech which I had prepared. I have taken that decision because of the speech of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk) who has indicated that on both sides of the House there is an understanding of the seriousness of the present position in Southern Rhodesia.
I should not have thought of suggesting that the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia should be suspended had it not been for the statement which has been issued today jointly by Mr. Garfield Todd, the ex-Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, representing progressive Europeans in that territory, and the National Democratic Party of Southern Rhodesia which undoubtedly represents the majority of African opinion. When a statement of that kind is published by the leader of the liberal Europeans and the Africans it is something of which the House cannot possibly fail to take notice.
I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Gravesend that the suspension of the Constitution should be regarded as a last measure and that if there are alternatives to be found we should be seeking for them. It is possible that the proposal made by the hon. Member for Gravesend might be acceptable on one condition: namely, that the political prisoners who are now in the gaols of Southern Rhodesia should be liberated. There are the 43 men who have been in prison or detention for 16 months without trial, the 200 men who have been imprisoned in Salisbury, and the hundreds now who are being imprisoned in Bulawayo. If there is to be any chance of a constitutional conference representing the National Democratic Party and the Central African Party, the condition must be that before that conference is held these men shall be released.
For 16 months men have been in prison who have never been brought to public trial. Now three leaders of the National Democratic Party, for whom there is the utmost respect in Southern Rhodesia—they are regarded as moderate leaders—have been arrested. The situation has even developed to the point where the vice-president of the Central African Party, the president of which is Mr. Garfield Todd, an ex-European Prime Minister, has also been arrested. In these circumstances, unless these releases from prison take place, the House has no right to expect either the National Democratic Party or the Central African Party in Southern Rhodesia to engage in constitutional discussions.

Mr. Peter Emery: Did the hon. Member say that Mr. Garfield Todd had been arrested, because that is what I understood him to say? That is not so.

Mr. Brockway: No, I did not say so.

Mr. Emery: I think the hon. Member should make the point clear.

Mr. Brockway: I said that the vice-president of the Central African Party, of which Mr. Garfield Todd is the president, has been arrested. Everyone who knows the vice-president knows that he is not only a man of character but a man whose whole influence has been exerted towards a solution of this problem on inter-racial lines. He feels himself so deeply against any methods of violence that even in these recent conflicts in Bulawayo he has been exerting his influence in that way.
I say to the House and particularly to the Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations that if the solution which is suggested by the hon. Member for Gravesend is to be acceptable, one of the pre-conditions of any constitutional conference including the National Democratic Party and the Central African Party must be that the men who are now detained without trial and the men who have now been arrested shall be released. Do that, and we may get an atmosphere in Southern Rhodesia in which the proposal of the hon. Member for Gravesend would prove acceptable. I earnestly plead with the Minister of State to use his influence to bringing about that solution.

4.18 a.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: I wish briefly to speak in support of the general approach made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Kirk). It is clear that there is now a serious situation in Southern Rhodesia. For many years it has rightly been the proud claim of Southern Rhodesia's Government that nobody has been killed in civil disorder in that country since 1896. That is a record which would compare favourably with almost every other country in the world. But, tragically, that can never be said again.
Like many other hon. Members, I have met Mr. Stanlake Samkange and Mr. Takawira. I should be very surprised indeed, although I realise that I may be wrong, if those two men were involved in anything which in this country would be regarded as subversive or violent. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to shed some light upon that.
I do not deny the necessity for the restoration of order as quickly as possible in Southern Rhodesia. I do not think that any progress can be made until that has been done, and I am sure that everyone in the House will support the Southern Rhodesian Government in any necessary steps which they must take to achieve that end. I do not think that we should at this time urge Her Majesty's Government to suspend the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. The immediate effect of such action would be to provoke a very major crisis, and, perhaps, to create the very situation which we want to avoid—that of driving Southern Rhodesia into the arms of the Union of South Africa.
I strongly support what my hon. Friend said about the extreme undesirability of South African troops being permitted to enter Southern Rhodesia in any circumstances whatsoever. I am sure that if the Southern Rhodesian Govern-Inuit were to ask for British troops to be sent Her Majesty's Government would comply with that request. If this should, unhappily, prove to be necessary, then it is very important indeed that those troops should not appear merely to be bolstering the existing regime. Nothing could be more damaging to our influence in the whole of Central Africa than that.
I would very much like to see the British Government summoning a conference for Southern Rhodesia similar to that held for Kenya and that now being held for Nyasaland; a conference at which all sections of the people of all races in Southern Rhodesia would be represented. It is essential that Her Majesty's Government should now take a political initiative in Southern Rhodesia. For too long the Southern Rhodesian Government have been preaching partnership and practising apartheid. It is sheer hypocrisy for us to continue to turn a blind eye to that fact.
I believe that there is still a real chance of partnership working, but it can work only with our encouragement and, if necessary, our intervention. There must be very much more rapid and practical progress towards the implementation of the policy of partnership to which the politicians out there are all committed.

4.24 a.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: We have been delighted on this side of the House to get the support of Members opposite in their general approach to the problem of Southern Rhodesia today. This is the second time that we have debated this subject in a short time. Last time we discussed the affairs of Southern Rhodesia we did our best to urge on Her Majesty's Government the desirability of impressing upon the Southern Rhodesian Government the need for consultation, for discussion, with leaders of African opinion in that country about the possibilities of constitutional advance.
We pointed out that there was to be a constitutional conference for Nyasaland, and asked why there should not also be a constitutional conference for Southern Rhodesia, and why it was not possible to bring to London leaders of African opinion in Southern Rhodesia, just as we were bringing' to London leaders of African opinion in Nyasaland, and sit around the table with the present Government and try to arrive at an agreed solution for some degree of constitutional advance.
We were delighted when the Africans were eventually invited. We met them. I met them myself. The very men now in prison were having tea with me in the


House of Commons only a few weeks ago. They seemed to be as moderate-minded men as I have ever met among African political leaders, men who expressed objectives not in the slightest degree unreasonable, men who had ideas of the rate of 'progress that could be achieved which were not hasty or intemperate, but reasonable. Therefore, we were deeply shocked on Wednesday last week when we read of their arrest. We would have liked to raise the matter in the House straight away, but the rules of order prevented it. I did say outside the House as soon as I was able to do so that we on this side regarded these arrests with very grave misgivings indeed, that we feared they might become a provocation to the kind of violent action which, on both sides, we would deplore, and unfortunately precisely that has happened.
Some of our newspapers appear to be representing to their readers just now that the arrests are the consequence of the riots. Surely, it is the other way round. The public meetings whose repression led to riots began as a protest against the arrest of these men with no reason given and no explanation assigned.
We meet tonight after all these events with our feelings that unnecessary action, again perhaps inspired by narrow political motives, was taken by the Government of Southern Rhodesia, and the feelings we have about this have been confirmed by the remarkable statement issued by Mr. Garfield Todd as well as by African political leaders. As my hon. Friend, the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said, it is a most historic occasion when a Former Prime Minister of a country like that can come into this country and issue such a statement.
I hope we are going to hear tonight from the Minister of State that he intends to see Mr. Garfield Todd as soon as possible—today, perhaps—and discuss with him the statement he has made and all the implications, and ask him what information he has about the seriousness of the situation and what proposals he has for a modification of that situation.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman must be in considerable difficulty tonight

because it was only about ten hours ago that the statement was issued. He cannot have had much time to discuss it with his political chief, and we may even wonder if he knows who his political chief is at the present time. The Government cannot seriously have considered this difficult and awkward situation because the Government are in process of unscrambling, de-scrambling, or re-scrambling. We do not know what sort of Government we have at this moment.

Mr. Ross: We know that.

Mr. Marquand: I should say we do not know how the Government are constituted at the moment. What I hope we shall hear tonight is that at the earliest possible opportunity there will be a serious consideration by the Government of the statement issued by Mr. Garfield Todd, and that an early opportunity will be taken to see him. That is absolutely important. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that not later than Thursday we shall have a further statement of the Government's attitude.

4.30 a.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am not sure at this point of time whether we are engaged in this debate at an abnormally early or abnormally late hour. I hope that hon. Members will allow me to intervene now to try to deal with some of the points which have been raised, and to do so at no great length, because I know there are several hon. Members with important matters to raise before the House rises.
I think the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) was arguing a certain part of his case under a misconception. My noble Friend has not been engaged in discussions, in any normal sense of the word, with any representatives of the National Democratic Party of Southern Rhodesia about a constitutional change or anything else. It is perfectly true that, as is perfectly right and proper, he has had an opportunity of meeting some who were present in London—as did the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)—when they were here, as he would meet anyone who came here and who occupied a position in the public life of


a country with which we were concerned. But to regard that as discussions or negotiations would be entirely misrepresenting the position of my noble Friend in this matter. Therefore, a good deal of the hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground.
There is another fact which the House may like to have recalled to its notice. It is that the franchise of Southern Rhodesia, which has come under some criticism, is that which was introduced by Mr. Garfield Todd himself when he was Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. As I remember the arguments at the time, he regarded it as a liberal franchise in the circumstances of Southern Rhodesia's development. It is certainly the franchise upon which the present Government of Southern Rhodesia was elected.
I noted another misconception by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon when he complained that we seemed to have reached a stage when it was not possible for the House to debate the problems of Commonwealth countries, although we could continue to debate those of foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman did not get that proposition in perspective. As I understand it, speeches can be, and are, made in the House on any subject under the sun, but Ministers can be called to account in these matters only if they are responsible. The Government of the United Kingdom are not responsible for any of the policies or actions of the independent countries of the Commonwealth, and, therefore, Ministers are in no way accountable for anything that those countries do.
Similarly, where powers of self-government have been handed over to a fully constituted Government by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, Ministers are not accountable for the actions of those governments, except in so far as specific powers are reserved to the Government of the United Kingdom, or to a United Kingdom Minister advising the Sovereign at any particular time.

Mr. Stonehouse: Mr. Stonehouse rose—

Mr. Alport: I have only a certain amount of time. If the hon. Member will let me finish my argument, he might

find that I clear up the issue which he wishes to raise.
Matters relating to law and order or internal security in Southern Rhodesia are matters for the Government of that country, who are accountable to the Parliament elected in that country with whatever franchise may be appertaining at the time. Southern Rhodesia has had internal self-government since 1923—thirty to forty years—and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell) said, it has had an outstanding record of freedom from civil disturbances, until these recent unhappy events. Decisions and actions in regard to the maintenance of law and order or internal security are for the Government of Southern Rhodesia and are matters for which Ministers in the United Kingdom are not accountable.
Indeed, any explanation with regard to the arrest of the men, to which reference has been made in this debate, is a matter for the Government of Southern Rhodesia to make when and if they think it appropriate. As a matter of fact, I think that it is common knowledge through the Press that the individuals concerned have been released on bail, and the matter is therefore sub judice. Therefore, even if it were my responsibility, or the responsibility of the Department in which I serve, it would be wrong for me to comment on that particular matter at the present time.

Mr. Stonehouse: Before the right hon. Gentleman finishes with his fascinating point about misconceptions, will he agree with one fundamental fact in regard to this situation, namely, that because of the protective clauses in the Southern Rhodesia Constitution, the 2½ million Africans regard the United Kingdom Government as the protecting power?

Mr. Alport: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue my argument, I think the position will become as clear as I physically am able to make it at this time in the morning.
It is, of course, possible for the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to argue that there should be some reversal in the long-established principle which United Kingdom Governments of all complexions have followed and which is aimed at seeking continually to devolve power to


local communities to have responsibility for their own affairs. Or they may argue, equally, that even though this power is devolved, the United Kingdom should seek to regain it by whatever means lies within their power. But I hope that that argument will not commend itself to the House, and I think, from the speeches that I have heard, that only a very small minority of hon. Members find an argument on those lines acceptable to them, because, quite apart from anything else, it would be impracticable for us to attempt to do so.
Those of us who have been involved in the problems of Africa during these recent years have, I think, come to the conclusion, or should have done, that the fundamental problem of Africa is the maintenance of law and stability. That is an interest common to all races who regard any part of Africa as their home, because with a breakdown of law and stability all races are bound to suffer. Whatever may be the other lessons which the recent events in the Congo have taught us, it is surely that the apparatus of ordered administration is of even more importance in Africa than anywhere else, because without it social and economic progress of the peoples there would be impossible, and the need for that social and economic progress is more important perhaps in Africa than anywhere else at the present time.
It is, therefore, the responsibility of any Government concerned in African affairs to ensure that ordered administration is maintained. In the case of Southern Rhodesia that responsibility rests with the Government of Southern Rhodesia—

Mr. Stonehouse: It is not being carried out.

Mr. Alport: —and they are entitled, in their task, to look for support to people of all races who live in that land, and I frankly have little doubt that that support will be forthcoming.
As far the United Kingdom is concerned, our responsibilities in respect of Southern Rhodesia are limited by a Constitution which has been given to it by the Parliament of this country to certain reserve powers which relate to legisla-

tion, and these responsibilities have been carried out in the terms of that Constitution by successive Secretaries of State over the last 30 or 40 years.
In addition, we have certain powers respecting amendment to the Constitutution, and in so far as there are any discussions between the Government of Southern Rhodesia and that of the United Kingdom, those discussions concern one point, namely, the exercise of those powers with regard to the amendment of the Constitution which are still reserved to the United Kingdom.
As the House knows, in November, 1959, and subsequently in April, 1960, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia came to the United Kingdom to discuss certain matters relating to the future Constitution of Southern Rhodesia. He is just as entitled to do so as any other Prime Minister of any other Colony or dependent territory of Great Britain, and any decisions which may be reached as a result of any particular set of constitutional talks are for the United Kingdom to make in the light of the responsibilities which remain to it.
I would remind the House, if I may, of the statement which I made in relation to these talks on 9th May, when I said:
The United Kingdom Government stated that their ability to accept a scheme which would reduce or withdraw the powers vested in the Secretary of State in relation to the Southern Rhodesia Constitution would depend on whether arrangements could be devised and agreed by both Governments which would provide effective alternative safeguards, particularly in respect of discriminatory legislation and land rights, and in respect of amendment of the Constitution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1960; Vol. 623, c. 31.]
That was the position then and that is the position at the present time. It is true that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has indicated to us that he would like to have further talks this year, possibly in September, but no decision in regard to these constitutional talks has as yet been taken either with regard to their timing or their nature. But I think that I have, however, made it perfectly clear—and this brings me to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Graveend (Mr. Kirk)—following the statement made by the Prime Minister in February, and on other occasions, that if any decision were made with regard to any change in the present Constitution


of Southern Rhodesia full weight would be given to the interests of the African inhabitants of the Colony. I have no shadow of doubt in my own mind that the Prime Minister and Government of Southern Rhodesia are just as alive as we are, as has been shown by the speeches made this evening, to the importance of paying proper regard to the representative views of the African population in any changes which are made.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is the responsibility of the United Kingdom to ensure that African interests are protected, and will he please answer the question, how are those interests to be ascertained? Will the Africans be directly consulted and, in particular, will the right hon Gentleman allow a constitutional conference to be called at which the Africans will be represented through their political parties?

Mr. Alport: I have already said, and it has been made clear on previous occasions, as far as any decisions which may be made with regard to any constitutional changes are concerned, proper regard will be paid to the Africans.

Mr. Stonehouse: But how?

Mr. Alport: When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State was asked, he explained that that was a matter which would be decided when the time comes for this discussion or conference, or whatever it may be, to be given effect. But it is not possible at the present moment to say precisely what the machinery will be for this, except, as I have already sail, that I am quite sure that the Government of Southern Rhodesia, just as we are, are alive to the importance of ensuring that the representative views of the Africans are ascertained and known by that time.

Mr. Brockway: By putting them in gaol.

Mr. Alport: I have endeavoured to set out as clearly as I can the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in the present situation. We have had a suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West, with regard to a constitutional conference. The constitutional conference which may take place is one to which I have

referred and no doubt all the views expressed in this debate and the discussions which will continue will be borne in mind if that conference is held.
I now want to turn to the document to which reference has already been made, the document bearing four signatures, including those of Mr. Joshua Nkomo and Mr. Garfield Todd, which was delivered to my noble Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon. I understand that it has also been the subject of a Press conference. It appears to us, as I think it will appear to the House, to be a request by the four signatories for intervention by force by the United Kingdom with the object of abrogating the Southern Rhodesian Constitution and overthrowing the present Southern Rhodesian Government. It further appears to invite Her Majesty's Government to abrogate the Federation Constitution as well.
In these circumstances, when there is a proper stress being put on the importance of constitutional behaviour by Governments, I find it difficult to believe that those who presented it—although it is true that Mr. Garfield Todd was at one time Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia—could have fully understood the implications in respect of Southern Rhodesia and the United Kingdom of the request which apparently they have made. I should have thought that nothing could have done a greater disservice to Southern Rhodesia in particular and the Federation in general at this juncture than the publication of a document which cannot in any way assist the restoration of stability and tranquillity in this territory and which represents a negation of long established constitutional practice in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury is quite wrong in drawing a parallel between the present differences in Southern Rhodesia and those in British Guiana. In fact, British Guiana was never a self-governing Colony and Southern Rhodesia has been a self-governing Colony for over a generation. What is more, we have the Monckton Commission in the process of finishing its work in considering the future of the Federation, which will provide us with calm and wise advice on the future pattern of that political unity formed by


the Federation. At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is engaged in important and obviously difficult negotiations with respect to the future of one of the territories from which we have every hope that there will be a fruitful outcome for Nyasaland.
Surely this is a time when the Government should observe the principles of constitutional behaviour in all matters which they are endeavouring to maintain and expand in the Commonwealth, and anyone advising us or pressing us to the contrary would be acting contrary to the best interests of the people not only in Africa but in the United Kingdom. Certainly it is along established lines of constitutional progress that Her Majesty's Government are concerned to proceed in this matter and I believe in that we shall have the support of hon. Members and of the general public here and overseas.

Mr. Marquand: Will the Minister answer my question? He has referred to the document signed by Mr. Garfield Todd as "seeming to say" this and "seeming to say" that. Will he find out whether that is really what the signatories mean by inviting Mr. Garfield Todd to come and see him?

Mr. Stonehouse: Will the Minister also see the other signatories as well?

Mr. Alport: I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said. I cannot give an undertaking at the moment. When the right hon. Gentleman has considered the document carefully, as we have, I do not think he will regard it as representing wise and calm advice with regard to the future of Southern Rhodesia.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING, LONDON

4.50 a.m.

Mr. Robert Mellish: I am sorry to keep the staff of this Palace up so late, but I think the House will agree when they have heard the debate that the subject is one which warrants myself and a number of my colleagues from London and Middlesex raising this problem which affects thousands of our constituents. I should also like to thank my hon. Friends who have been taking part in the debate on Southern Rhodesia for completing that debate and giving time for adequate discussion of this very important subject.
I am not going over the whole ground of housing problems in the London area. Others who will take part in this debate are more qualified than I am to do that. I tell the Minister straight away that many thousands of Londoners are suffering, and are about to start suffering, from the effects of the 1957 Rent Act. As a result of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, which came in shortly after the Rent Act, throughout London many landlords came to an agreement with their tenants to sign three-year leases. In almost all those cases in London and Middlesex rents went up considerably and the landlords ensured that the tenants had to do a certain amount of repairs. That enabled the Minister to say, with a great deal of confidence, at the last General Election that the Labour Party's fears of mass evictions would not be realised, but I say to the Minister quite sincerely, from knowledge of my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Southwark, for which I have authority to speak from the hon. Member who is abroad and would otherwise be taking part in this debate, the full effects of the 1957 Act are now being truly felt because those leases are now falling in and new leases are being offered to tenants.
The Minister may not know this—although he should know it. Since 1957 there has been a great change in property owners. Speculators, big boys and spivs, have moved in and this is becoming a racket. Instead of there being a property-owning democracy in which the Minister and I personally believe, unfortunately a lot of people


have moved in with one object—to buy property, not to improve it and apply decent conditions for the tenants who live there, but merely to make profits. As a consequence, leases are being offered to tenants at rents which are scandalous. There can be no other word for it. This is acting as a snowball. I can give instances of sixty tenants in my constituency who had their rents raised to £3 5s. a week in 1957 and are now being asked to sign new leases and pay £4 15s. a week for very old property.
They are told that under the terms of the leases they not only have to do internal and external repairs, but the landlord will visit the property before the lease is signed and compel them to put it into what he considers a satisfactory state of repair. These are landlords who did not own the property until a year ago. I took legal views on many of these leases and was told that there was nothing the lawyers could do because the position was wide open.
One of the claims of the Minister was that when he applied the Act there would be a great movement of people into property and that those who could afford lower rents would find accommodation. I beg him to believe that that is absolute nonsense; in fact the opposite has happened. In my constituency, whereas in the case of a privately-owned flat with a rateable value of under £40 and therefore controlled, a family would move from a two-roomed flat to a three-roomed flat when the family grew up, now the moment a person moves from a flat on which the rateable value is under £40 it becomes decontrolled. The rents being demanded are fabulous, with the result that no movement is taking place into the flats. People cannot afford to pay the rents being asked, as a result of decontrol being introduced by the Act.
I want to refer to the position in Thurrock—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) will not object—and to some articles which have been running in the Star, which I hope the Minister has read. The headline is
A cruel way to treat Londoners.
I will quote an instance of the way in which new landlords have moved in. The

owners of these properties were respectable, decent people who recognised that the properties were not worth a large rent increase under the 1957 Act. They applied hardly any increase. But since then the speculators have moved in, and the ultimatum which tenants have received is quoted in this article as
Pay up next Monday or get out.
In other words, they must pay a certain increased rent or get out.
The full force of the Rent Act, 1957 has hit them",
the article continues. Some of the properties are in a dilapidated condition and the new owners are asking for fantastic rents.
Perhaps I might quote what was said by an important person in Southwark, Monsignor Anthony Reynolds, who is a very respected priest in that area. He said,
There are at least a thousand tenements in my parish like this. As soon as one is empty it is decontrolled and other people come in. Sometimes they pay £25 or even £50 for entry at the higher rent. In the worst buildings in this parish the rents run at £2 2s. for two small rooms, £3 3s. for three. There must be at least 50,000 tenements in London in the same boat
Those are not my words but the words of a man who lives in that area. I do not know his political persuasion, except that, like most people in London, he is ashamed of what is going on today—and going on legally under the Minister's 1957 Act.
I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that we have reached the limit of these rent increases and that he will have the courage to reintroduce rent control. The Minister said recently—I could quote his words and he can correct me if I am wrong—that the bad effects of the Rent Act concerned only Greater London. I remind him that 15 million people are living in Greater London. Many of my hon. Friends and I become fed up because London's problems are not mentioned more often in the House. We hear a lot about Scotland and elsewhere, but in Greater London there is a bigger population than in Scotland and Wales together.
The fact remains that these tenants are suffering hardship and we are asking that something should be done to help them. My colleagues will give other examples in the debate.
In the final words of my short speech I will tell the Minister that my own local authority is very progressive. It is a Labour-controlled authority, it has a direct-labour scheme and its record of building and rebuilding is a credit to it and to London. I am proud of what my authority has done. But it is being badly hurt by the Government's economic policy. The authority is having to pay 7¼ per cent. and 7½ per cent. to borrow money. Even a small borough such as Bermondsey already owes £7 million in housing loans. In order to continue its efforts to help people to raise their standards of life, the local authority has had to go into the open market, at the Minister's insistence, to borrow money at those rates. This happens simply because the authority is trying to provide its people with decent living accommodation.
Why does not the Minister understand that we regard the provisions of housing as an essential for ordinary people? Local authorities ought to be encouraged in this work by the provision of low, fixed-rate interest loans which would enable them to do a good job, whether they are Labour or Conservative-controlled. We believe housing to be one of the greatest social needs of the day. We do not think that the Minister's approach to it is right. He has made legal a realm for speculators and for spivs. He ought to be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

4.59 a.m.

Mr. Compton Carr: I cannot miss the opportunity to say a few words in the debate because, although I am now a Londoner, I do not agree with most of the comments of the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) because—

Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member does not live there.

Mr. Carr: No, but I recall a moving article by the hon. Member some years ago on the difficulties of living in a council house on a Member of Parliament's pay.

Mr. Mellish: I have never written such an article. I do not know where the hon. Member got it from. I do not live in a council house. I am paying the Minister's 6¼ per cent. interest to buy my own house.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Carr: If I have made an error, I withdraw. I would not imply that the hon. Member had said that he had difficulty. It has, however, been implied, and it was implied in the hon. Member's words tonight, that it would be difficult to live in a council house on a Member of Parliament's pay. The hon. Member is implying—[Interruption.] He mentioned the difficulties of people living in houses in London, and he was—

Mr. Mellish: I must get this clear. I now know the article. I wrote an article explaining that I was buying my own house and that, in spite of the salary, which reputedly was high, I had to pay something like £4 10s. a week and I found it difficult to do so. I explained in the article that since I bought the house the interest charges had gone up no fewer than three times under the Government.

Mr. Carr: I am obliged, and I apologise to the hon. Member for having taken the implication that he was living in a council house. The point made by the hon. Member is exactly the point I am making. Today, too many people regard the percentage of their income which is paid for their home as being sacrosanct at a low level. The hon. Member mentioned a figure, and I know that we have to bear more expenses than people outside this House believe. Indeed, as a new Member, I find that there was little exaggeration in pant of the hon. Member's article, which, I well remember, at the time I found hard to believe; but I am learning the hard way. The building societies, who look at things from a practical viewpoint, place a man's ability to pay at about one-quarter of his gross income.
There are large numbers of people in this City who pay nothing like that amount and they continually regard the question of rising rents by councils as something which is against all their rights as citizens in London. Those are the people who, like another type of person whom I represent—the immigrant in London—are causing a great deal of trouble in London housing. The man who does not want to pay the full economic rent and the man who goes into London expecting to find accommodation at a low rent and who sometimes is


willing to accept a low standard of housing to get into London are causing a gnat deal of the housing trouble in Landon. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said "Bunkum."

Mr. Marsh: No. I said "sheer bunkum."

Mr. Carr: I am obliged to the hon. Member. If those words can be applied to people who come into this City willing to pay the rents of which the hon. Member for Bermondsey was speaking and have low-grade accommodation—they are obviously not of the rich, because nobody who is of the rich will live in appalling conditions and pay those high rents—they are obviously adding to the problems. There are large numbers of people coming into this City and adding to the problem. One reason why thins problem is aggravated is that local authorities will not apply the statutory overcrowding byelaws.

Mr. Mellish: There are buildings in Southwark which are privately owned and where people have been living for years and years, just ordinary working-class people, but these are not council flats.

Mr. Carr: I do appreciate the hon. Member's argument about this. I do not want to extend this into a long speech, but the point is and must be realised that if there is a market for low grade accommodation at high rents it is because people are coming in from somewhere. It is no use a landlord going to his respectable tenants in a block in, say, Bermondsey, and where they have been living for years, and saying to them, "I will raise your rents by £4 or £5 a week," or whatever it may be. [HON. MEMBERS: "They do."] I know they do, but they cannot do it unless there is a market. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]

Mr. Marsh: Mr. Marsh rose—

Mr. Carr: I will not give way for a moment.
This point is fundamental, and it is obvious to the meanest intelligence outside this House, and it is the one basic factor in the whole argument about housing in London or any great city, that whether a man be a spiv or anyone

else he cannot get his rent unless people are willing to pay it and willing to pay it even for low grade accommodation

Mr. Ross: Surely this is a matter of scarcity value. There are more people than there are houses for them. That destroys the whole argument presented to us for the Rent Act.

Mr. Carr: I am obliged to the hon. Member, and if the hon. Member for Greenwich wishes to intervene after I have dealt with the point I will let him, because I should not like him to think I refused just now to give way to him for any personal reasons.
The point is this. If there is scarcity value it is continually exacerbated by movement. The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) can bear me out from experience in part of his own constituency. In his constituency and in mine, and elsewhere, there are areas where young people with their families tend to move out into better areas, aid where there is a continual movement in of people from outside London, and these people sometimes—I say it without any disrespect—are willing to accept lower housing standards than even the people who have moved out.

Mr. Marsh: I do not know what connection the hon. Member has with London, but it must be peculiar Is he not aware that in practically any London borough people have to live in the district three years before they can even apply to be put on the housing list? It is not just a question of people coming from outside and walking into houses.

Mr. Carr: I am not talking about council houses. The hon. Member for Bermondsey has already directed my attention to the fact that we are not talking about council houses. There are large areas in London where people come in from outside who do not worry whether they will go on a council housing list. They are the people who very often contribute to this overcrowding, willy-nilly, because they want to come here for work or one reason or another. How do we stop that, someone asks? If we insist, especially in areas where overcrowding is endemic and there is continual movement, on applying the overcrowding byelaws, we could in that way start to nibble away at this problem.

Mr. Ross: The rats have started already.

Mr. A. Evans: I assure the hon. Member that his right hon. Friend the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, time after time, have agreed in the House that the Statutes relating to overcrowding cannot be enforced by the local authorities.

Mr. Carr: They cannot be enforced on the local authorities, but it is up to the local authorities to enforce them. [HON. MEMBERS: "How?"] I cannot take it from any hon. Member that I know nothing about London housing. I know as much as many hon. Members. I know about housing in Deptford, in Bermondsey, in Southwark, Hoxton and my own constituency, as well as in other cities. To listen to hon. Members opposite one would gather that they had never considered anything without believing in the doctrinaire idea that no house was ever owned by anyone who was not a Tory and also a spiv. While the hon. Member for Bermondsey was speaking, hon. Members opposite kept shouting "Tory, Tory, Tory". They are tied to the doctrinaire idea that nothing that is bad is not Tory and nothing that is good is not Socialist, and Socialism means municipalisation and therefore it is the only solution to the problem. That is what is asked for by the hon. Member for Bermondsey.

Mr. Mellish: What are you talking about? I believe in a property-owning democracy.

Mr. Carr: I do not know whether that remark was addressed to me through you, Mr. Speaker. I accept that it was. If the hon. Member believes in a property-owning democracy he certainly gave no impression of doing so, except on the one occasion when he said it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] What people say and what people do are very often different things, especially in Socialism. The party to which the hon. Member for Bermondsey belongs does not believe in a property-owning democracy.

Mr. Mellish: Oh, yes, it does.

Mr. Carr: If it does why does it ask for special privileges for councils? If it is possible for the private landlord

to build new properties to let at a rent which is a quarter of the average national wage, why it is not possible—

Mr. Marsh: It is not.

Mr. Carr: It is indeed.

Mr. G. W. Reynolds: Where?

Mr. Carr: Anywhere in London. A quarter of the average national wage is £3 10s. That is the whole point that hon. Members opposite choose to ignore.

Mr. Walter Edwards: The agricultural worker's wage?

Hon. Members: Let us have some telephone numbers.

Mr. Carr: Hon. Members ask for telephone numbers. This is a housing debate. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not street offences."] I agree, it is not a debate on street offences. My point is that it is possible to charge those rents and get an economic return. That is not to say that those rents are being charged. [Laughter.] Considering the housing conditions in his area and the fact that every London hon. Member is concerned about housing, I wonder why the hon. Member for Greenwich finds this so amusing.

Mr. Marsh: It is only the hon. Member's speech that I find amusing, for it bears no relationship at all to the housing situation in London.

Mr. Carr: If the hon. Member regards the dignity of the House with as much respect as he regards my speech, then I can quite understand why he addresses the Chair with his hands in his pockets. [HON. MEMBERS: "But the hon. Member has his hand in his pocket."] The hon. Member for Greenwich had both hands in his pockets. It is quite clear—

Mr. Herbert Butler: Get to the end, to the peroration.

Mr. Carr: We are all trying to say something which is of assistance in this debate except for hon. Members who insist on interrupting without standing up and who have no interest in London housing as far as I know.
The point about London housing, which the hon. Gentleman refuses to admit, is that one cannot increase rents unless people are willing to pay. They do not have to pay them. If others in council houses who are being subsidised unnecessarily were forced to pay economic rents, with a rebate for need, we should solve much of the London housing problem. That is slowly being recognised by councils, including Socialist-controlled councils, all over London. Fulham Borough Council, although it is not moving fully towards economic rents, is moving to a rent rebate scheme.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: If the hon. Member says that the Fulham Borough Council is moving towards a rebate scheme, is he aware that my council has been operating one for some time but it has not yet solved its housing problem? If he suggests, as he has done, that with a rent rebate scheme tenants would leave council houses and go into the flats which they could afford on an economic basis and thus solve the housing problem, why is it not happening where rebate schemes are working?

Mr. Carr: That is my suggestion at any rate. I do not agree with the hon. Member.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but I feel that one cannot speak about London housing from any one single point of view. I regard the problem as one which is soluble only by the exercise of a great deal of ingenuity by all of us.

5.19 a.m.

Mr. Michael Cliffe: The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) brought in the usual old bogeyman of council tenants and rebate schemes, something which is now much more appreciated by the people as a deception very successfully practised by the Tory Party before the General Election. It was used primarily to cover up the mistakes made in Housing Acts from 1954 onwards.
I want to speak of the situation in my constituency. It is ridiculous for an hon. Member to suggest that people art paying rent for properties in

London outside council property strictly in accordance with their incomes. They are, in fact, paying £3 and £4 a week for basement rooms in some of the most dilapidated places in London—places in which rich people would not dare to put their dogs. People go into such places because no others are available, as the Government have made it impossible for local authorities to continue to provide better accommodation. By removing subsidies and taking other action the Government have made it impossible for local authorities to do the work that needs to be done. I speak because I feel strongly about the terrible effect of all this on my constituency.
One of the local authorities I represent decided that it would purchase an area of land of about 1½ acres. The district valuer, in March, 1958, estimated its value at about £34,600, but, as a result of the 1959 Act, the new valuation in November, 1959, was £79,500. That increase, which came within 15 months, was a present to the owners of the property of about £45,000. These are the problems of housing in London.
There was another piece of land of about one-sixth of an acre fronting Old Street in Finsbury. A housing scheme was being developed and it was considered that this small area should not be left isolated but should be fitted into the scheme. The price was set at £18,000. As a result of certain complications and difficulties during the negotiations, the purchase was delayed until, in 1959, that piece of land was valued at £75,000.
This is the kind of situation arising as a result of the Government's legislation and the fact that local authorities are now having to compete with private enterprise in the purchase of land and to pay these fantastic prices. I do not want to quote instances outside my own constituency in view of the time, but as an example of the effect of the Rent Act of 1957 on rental agreements, properties in a close in the Borough of Finsbury where the rent was £3 10s. a week had sit increased by 30s. as a result of that Act, and that was a very good landlord who decided it should be on the basis of instalments over a period of twelve months. Certain assurances


were given by people I know well connected with this property that the rent would not be increased any more. But tenants are now being called upon to sign new agreements as the present ones fall in in October, and they are being asked to pay another 30s.
Every week those who cannot afford to pay come to see me to inquire if I can use my influence with the local authority to provide them with cheaper accommodation. As much as £7 10s. and £8 is now being asked for two rooms and people are having to pay because there is no other accommodation. This situation has not been created unintentionally but deliberately by a Tory Government. No one will convince me that the Minister of Housing and Local Government did not know what the situation in London and in the country generally was. He knew he was making a present to the property owners.
So far as furnished accommodation is concerned, the sky is the limit. People who have a couple of rooms to spare put in a few sticks of furniture and charge anything between £4 and £6 a week. In addition, they lay down numerous conditions. They will not have dogs, cats, prams, or children.
Deputations have come to me about a block of old dwellings where the agent, living in the property, says rather sympathetically, "You have lived here for about ten years, it would be a good idea if we could give you some additional accommodation." And so there is a new tenancy agreement and an increase in the rent. The rents for basement rooms in the same block, which are dungeons and which are continually changing tenancy, keep going up and up. There are people paying £3 a week for two basement rooms in the centre of London, and if hon. Members do not believe me I am prepared to show them.
The whole position is scandalous. I blame not the speculators and the gamblers, but the people who have made these things possible—the Tory Government. In view of the high cost of land and the extra charges which local authorities have to pay with slum clearance, subsidies should be increased to enable local authorities to build council flats to be let at reasonable rents. We

sometimes talk about council flats as though they were rent free, but there are people in my constituency who pay £3 10s. or £4 a week for a council flat. We also have to take into account the real value of those flats.
Are we to continue to allow rents to go up and up because the Government have created a free market and removed all restrictions from one of the scarcest commodities, leaving the consequences to be exploited? The situation has been prostituted to such a degree that thousands of people are making a small minority rich while nothing is being done to help the general public. I appeal to the Minister to increase slum clearance subsidies and to make cheaper money available to local authorities so that they can remove some of the restrictions under which they are now working.

5.32 a.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I have sat here all night, but I have to fight for my people in Willesden and I am certain that in what I say I shall be speaking not only for my constituency, but for many of the black spots in the London area.
I had the good fortune to be able to raise some of these matters with the right hon. Gentleman in the last housing debate, and after that debate I was able to send the right hon. Gentleman the front page of our local newspaper, the Willesden Chronicle, upon which the Minister was kind enough to give me a number of comments. I remind him of the report which was published at that time of the conditions in my constituency. There were about 700 instances of families who had never been able to live together; there were 1,800 families who were overcrowded—and official overcrowding is almost like sardine packing; five hundred people were getting extra housing points because of blindness, paralysis, loss of limbs or having ailments such as severe chest or heart conditions and other serious illnesses; there were 2,000 families in desperate need, but with slender hopes of early rehousing, because rehousing for those living in slums and pre-fabs came first. I have made representations to the Minister and I think that he is aware of the terrible situation which prevails in my constituency.
I ask him to treat this as a matter of extreme urgency and to take some action in view of the results accruing from the 1957 legislation, results which may be even more apparent in October when the three-year period runs out. I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for not really knowing the situation and, unlike the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr), I will try my best to explain the position to the right hon. Gentleman.
In my constituency, we are not faced with the problem of the luxury flat tenant having to make a three-year agreement. Most of the houses in my area have been controlled. They were under the £40 rateable value limit and, in consequence, they have become decontrolled only when someone has moved out, or something like that has occurred. However, as a result of that fact, most people dare not move and a number of urgent situations have arisen because people who should exchange houses have been unable to do so, because once a tenant has moved out, the house has been decontrolled. That is having a sorry effect on the home and family life of the people of my area.
I will give three very quick examples. First, Mrs. White, late of 308, Chapter Road. She is 68 years old. She was living downstairs. The landlord told her that there was a vacant flat upstairs and asked her whether she would like to move up there. She went upstairs. Within three months the house was sold and she was to be evicted. I took a soap box outside the house, and we then paraded up and down the street and managed to get a stay of execution for that old lady of 68. She had lived there for 27 years, but the fact that she moved upstairs meant that her flat was no longer controlled. The landlord said that he would have to consult his directors, but agreed to a stay of execution, and the borough council was able to do something about it. I looked up the company and found that it was registered after the Act. It was founded with a capital of only £100. There were only two directors. He held 99 of the shares and his wife held the other one. The Act has brought about this situation which makes it impossible for us to do anything for our people to prevent them being evicted.
Incidentally, this bundle consists of correspondence on housing cases over the last three months. I am not alone in this. I think hon. Members on both sides of the House will bear me out. Almost every Friday night nine out of the ten cases referred to me concern cases with a housing problem. We can write to the housing managers concerned; we can write to the Minister, but we cannot give our people houses.
Case No. 2 is that of Mrs. Maton, of 48 Ravensworth Road. Her husband is in Pinewood Hospital suffering from heart trouble. She came to me and pleaded with me to help. She lives upstairs, but she said that she would be able to get her husband out of hospital if she could move downstairs where there would be no stairs for her husband to climb. He has little time to live and her plea is to be allowed to spend the last few months of her husband's life with him. I went to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and in the end the local newspaper had a big splash story asking if anyone would be prepared to change accommodation with this lady, but no one was able to do so because if he did his rent would become decontrolled.
Case No. 3 is that of Mrs. Downes of 5 Churchmead Road. The situation there is similar, but in this case they did move. The husband was ill. The landlord was a good landlord and he was prepared to waive the 1957 Act, although he could not do it officially. They came downstairs so that her husband could enjoy a slightly longer life. They moved downstairs in April, 1959, and he died in July, 1959. In September the house was sold, and she is now subject to eviction.
Those are three cases. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House could give many more examples like those. The Minister claimed for his Act that it would give mobility; that it would make places free, and that it would establish a free market. In fact, the Act has done the opposite.
Let me quote another type of case which is typical of many. I will call the gentleman Mr. Lester. He came to see me. He has three rooms; two bedrooms, and one room that is the kitchen, living room, dining room combined. There are four members of the family, himself, his wife, a boy of 15 and a girl of 12. The


husband and wife sleep in one room, the children in another, the third room is used for all other purposes. He has asked me what he should do. The children are growing up and he is faced with a difficult problem. I can do nothing. None of us can. It is this kind of case which I would like the Minister to consider when he gives us statistics of the housing situation and says that the situation in the country has improved.
The Minister is with us in this, that he is recognising that though the overall position might be improving, there are these spots where, in the same way as my right hon. Friend referred to action to deal with a bad employment situation, one has to take special action and pass special legislation to get something done. The time has come to do something like that for the housing problem. There ought to be a special local housing Bill which would enable us—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss legislation.

Mr. Pavitt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
When the Minister considers the problem of overcrowding in houses, will he also consider the problem of overcrowding in gardens? In my constituency a garden consists of a piece of land about the size of the area from Mr. Speaker's Chair to the Gangway. In 55 per cent. of the cases in my constituency, such an area is shared by two families. It means that arrangements have to be made to divide the garden down the middle, and in the resulting areas children have to play, washing has to be hung up, and arrangements have to be made to go through other people's quarters. There is also the coal problem in winter.
These human problems arise because of the shortage of housing accommodation. I ask the Minister to do something urgently to assist all hon. Members representing London constituencies to deal with this terrific problem.

5.40 a.m.

Mr. Richard Marsh: I think that the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) is entitled to an apology from me in that I laughed so much while he was speaking. This was a discourtesy which, on reflection, is regretted, but I really am horrified—because hon. Members opposite must

have exactly the same housing problems as hon. Members on this side of the House—that an hon. Member representing a London constituency can be so completely out of touch with the situation which exists in the Metropolis as the hon. Gentleman proved himself to be.
The hon. Gentleman said that he believes that if housing could be provided by private companies at rents representing a quarter of the applicant's income, that would be a good thing to encourage. We would agree with him, and, speaking for myself, I am as keen as anyone else to see owner occupation. I do not care who builds the houses so long as they are there and people can get into them. But the average earnings today are £14 a week. A quarter of that is £3 10s., but there are just not vacant houses available for rent in the London area at that sort of figure.

Mr. Compton Carr: I did not imply that there ought to be houses available at that rent, but only that houses should be available. If people are buying houses, they can do so at £3 10s. a week.

Mr. Marsh: Obviously the hon. Gentleman and I see two different pictures and there is no point of agreement between us.
One of the big housing problems is that there are a lot of people who, for one reason or another, just cannot produce the £300 or £400 lump sum which it is necessary to put down in order to begin buying a property. Many hon. Members will agree that this is a complex social issue. The fact remains that a large proportion of the population cannot produce £300 or £400 with which to start buying a house. Therefore, rented accommodation has to be provided.
Unfortunately, that accommodation is not being provided by private enterprise, and, therefore, the local authorities have to do it. The need for local authority housing is a real one for a proportion of the population. The hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that, somehow or other, this has nothing to do with the Government and that extraneous features and factors are responsible. The real responsibility for the situation which exists in London lies squarely on the Minister. This is a Governmental issue and responsibility rests on the Government.


With the greatest respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we have had a lot of discussion about Ministers in recent days, which are the good ones and which are the bad ones. I believe that probably the only other political appointment which was worse than that of the right hon. Gentleman was when the Roman Emperor Caligula made his horse a consul.
The position in London is tragic, not merely because it exists but because the Government have done nothing whatever to alleviate the appalling situation. There has been talk about differential rent schemes for local authorities. The days when local authority houses were available at low rents passed many years ago. In Greenwich today we have three-bedroom council houses being let at £3 15s. a week.
There are many people in the country—employed in local government and the National Health Service—whose basic wage in the London area is under £8 10s. a week, and even £3 15s. a week is a sum that many cannot afford to pay. Many hon. Members have had the experience when dealing with house applicants of having to ask how much they can afford to pay, even before finding out whether a house is available for them.
I propose to make my concluding remarks very rapidly because I know that several other hon. Members wish to speak in this debate. As far as Greenwich is concerned, we have 1,881 applicants on the waiting list. Last year we did not house a single family from that list of 1,881 people. Why was that? In the past five years, or from 1955 to 1958, we managed to house 345 people off the waiting list. In 1959 we housed 20 and last year we housed none at all. This is directly the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, or at least of the Government, because in Greenwich we have been faced with the problem of the derequisitioning, between June, 1955, and 1960, of no less than 673 family units. The overwhelming majority of the derequisitioned property, particularly in the Blackheath area, is immediately converted into flats which are let at six and seven guineas a week.
One could argue the virtues of private ownership and perhaps put up a good and moral case for it. But a situation

where the homes are not wanted by the owners to live in and are usually taken by syndicates and companies and turned into flats to be let at exorbitant rents when there are over 1,881 people without decent accommodation is blantantly immoral.
If we consider the problem of slum clearance there are another 150 families to house and our new building programme for the next five years is 578. On the housing list we have 273 families whose situation is recognised by all as of extreme urgency. It is recognised by medical officers of health and doctors in the borough that there are families in Greenwich with no houses where the health of the wife is being completely wrecked. We are informed by psychiatrists from London mental hospitals of women who are about to become complete mental wrecks unless accommodation can be provided, and we have 273 urgent cases.
I say with great sorrow that there is no possibility of housing the great majority of the people on our list in the foreseeable future. There is no hope that we can offer them, that is the dreadful thing about it. It is not that we cannot house the people, but when people come with stories of their appalling situation we cannot even offer them hope. This is the result of Government responsibility and it cannot be dodged.
A woman came to see me recently who had two small children and the family live in one room. Her husband is suffering from disseminated sclerosis and is completely incapable of working. Those two small children are strapped in a cot all day long while the mother is out at work because the father cannot take charge of them. They go out for a walk once a week on the mother's day off on Sunday. She said to me, "Surely, Mr. Marsh, if anybody has a right to accommodation, I have?" I told her, "Of course you have a right to accommodation. Your health is being ruined and the health of your husband and children. It is an appalling position, but we cannot house anyone at all because we have no accommodation at all." For the 578 houses we hope to build there will be no Exchequer subsidy payment at all.
We ask that the Government recognise that, for a whole variety of reasons, the situation in London is more tragic than anywhere else in the country. It is not a question of moving to another Dart, because London has become so large that it is almost a financial impossibility to bear the burden of moving out of the London area but still to work there.
We are not attacking the private owner-occupier. In 1951 the interest rate on a mortgage of £2,000 was £10 15s. a month. In 1959 that had risen to 5; per cent. or £12 15s. Today it is 6 per cent. or £13 1s. 8d. The ordinary little owner-occupier is paying £2 6s. 8d. a month extra purely as a result of Government financial policy. In Greenwich alone, the increase in the Bank Rate brought an increase of £11,600 in expenditure of public money, which could have been used to house some of the people, and out of which the council will receive nothing at all.
The Government must accept full responsibility for their financial policy. They must accept responsibility for housing conditions in the London area. In the London area housing has virtually come to a full-stop. For many there is no hope and no possibility of accommodation. Any Government which can sit by and watch 11 million of its people in the greatest capital in the world in these circumstances, has no right to expect even the support of its own side.

5.50 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will occupy the time of the House for only a short time, but, as a London Member, I want to support most strongly the plea put forward by my colleagues about the serious new housing situation which is developing in London as a result of Government action.
I want to draw the attention of the Minister to this. Until two or three years ago there was a certain amount of restraint exercised by London landlords in dealing with their tenants. That restraint was due to two things; legislation which prevented them raising rents beyond what was permitted by Act of Parliament, and secondly, a climate of opinion which made it wrong and disreputable for landlords to exploit their tenants, at any rate beyond a certain

degree. That inhibited landlords, even where they had rooms which were de-restricted, from raising the rents to an unconscionable extent. Now we see a great change brought about by Government action. Restraint has been relaxed and landlords are utterly unscrupulous and heartless in their dealings with their tenants. They put up rents to an extent which is absolutely intolerable and would shock every hon. Member of this House.
My purpose in rising in this debate is to give two examples from my constituency of what is happening. In a block of several streets close to Waterloo Station, the old landlord has sold out to a new company. I am prepared to give the Minister full particulars. This company is taking every opportunity when the rooms it owns become derestricted, to exploit its tenants mercilessly. It does not care what happens to them. It tries to extract the last possible penny from their pockets and take the maximum advantage of the present grave housing shortage, fearful maybe that that shortage may not last very long.
One tenant I know rented two rooms in 1958 on a two years lease at £2 10s. a week. That was not unreasonable. But the landlord insisted that an enormous amount of reconstruction of those rooms should be carried out by the tenant, who had to spend £220 putting in a bathroom, a W.C., decorations, doing removals, installing gas, heating and fittings. I have seen the receipts for this work. On top of that there was £70 key money. The tenancy expires in December this year and the landlord now offers to renew it, raising the £2 10s. to £4 10s. The tenant not only paid the rent butt put the landlord's property into a good state.
On the same estate a family has been living for twenty-five years. The lady who was the tenant died and her daughter and son-in-law, who had lived there for fourteen years, wanted to continue to dive there because their relatives and friends are there. It was not a continuing tenancy because the lady who died was the continuing tenant. Therefore, the place became derestricted. Up to now the rent has been £112 a year. A now offer has been made to the daughter and son-in-law, who have lived there for fourteen years. The landlord, a private company


in fact, says he will renew the tenancy for one year if the rent is increased from £112 to £260 a year and the tenants spend £200 on putting the property into a better condition.
This sort of thing is starting, and it will grow. It is an intolerable situation. My colleagues and I want Parliament to know about this. We want the Minister to know about it, because he must accept a large measure of responsibility for the changing situation in London, in which this kind of thing is happening. It did not happen before, but we are certain that it is now doing so on a rapidly increasing scale.
I cannot ask the Government to introduce legislation because that would be out of order, but I ask the Minister to bear in mind his responsibility for this situation. I am sure that he did not want this sort of thing to happen, although we warned him that it would. I ask him at least to examine the evidence of the examples which my hon. Friends and I have quoted to see for himself whether this is happening on a big scale. He could ask the property companies, as a matter of decency, to tell him what they are doing. If he finds that they are doing as we have suggested, and if he cannot introduce legislation, let him at least come to the House and publicly condemn this action and say that it is contrary to public interest and that the Government object to it. That may at least have some effect in mitigating this terrible and growing evil which is bearing so harshly on the working people of London.

5.57 a.m.

Sir Leslie Plummer: When the House was debating the Rent Act three years ago hon. Members opposite told us that we were doing a disservice in suggesting that British landlords would behave badly if certain conditions in the Bill, which we were opposing, were passed by the House. We pointed out to the Minister that the original Act restricting rent increases, in 1915, was passed because British landlords were behaving badly, and we thought that they would behave badly again if they were encouraged by the Minister to do so. We asked him to introduce certain controls into the Bill, but he rejected that request.
I do not believe that the Minister is aware of the seriousness of the situation in London. If he were, he would not turn such a hard face to the case which we have put to him not only this morning but over the last two or three years. My hon. Friends have gone into some detail about the housing situation in their constituencies. I will say no more about that than to point out that, after all the efforts which have been made by the Deptford Borough Council in the building of homes, in the last four years we have been able to reduce the housing waiting list by twenty families. The reason that we have not done more lies in the right hon. Gentleman's legislation dealing with derequisitioning. Everything we have built has had to be made available to people who were living in requisitioned property, some of them in much better property than many people on the waiting list. Nevertheless, I am informed that by 31st March next year, which is the terminal date, Deptford Borough Council will not be able to derequisition all its requisitioned property. The ball will be passed to the right hon. Gentleman and he will have to decide what must be done. That is all I propose to say this morning on the details.
I want to bring to the right hon. Gentleman's attention and that of the House one of the effects of this decontrol of property for which the Minister is responsible. We all followed with interest the interjection in the debate by the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr). I think that I lost a great experience when he left Deptford, where he had been Tory candidate, and went to the warmer and more salubrious political climes of Barons Court. I am sure we should shave had an interesting election with him giving such lucid and intelligent speeches to the electors of Deptford. I do not think it would have made much difference to the result.
There is in my constituency an area which is now becoming known as the "Caribbean quarter". It is the area, which the hon. Member knows, of Childeric Road, Bawtry Road, Ludwick Road and Ruddigore Road. These are small substandard houses which were on offer to the sitting tenants three years ago at about £595. The landlords never asked for £600. It was always the bargain price of £595. Today, those houses


are being sold for between £2,250 and £2,750.
How does this happen? This property was known as the New Cross Estate when, before the Rent Act, it was owned by a reputable property firm. As I propose to discuss some disreputable property firms, I do not want to do any harm to that reputable firm so I will not mention its name. On 18th May, 1956, this property changed hands. A memorandum and articles of association were drawn up by a firm called Gamkemp Investments, Ltd., which had a capital of £100—one of my hon. Friends has referred to these £100 companies—and two subscribers, a lady who described herself as a company director and a gentleman bearing the same name and describing himself as a barrister.
On 9th January, 1958,—we are now coming into the calm and pleasant period of the Rent Act for landlords—it was registered as a limited company with offices at 77, South Audley Street. One cannot find it at 77, South Audley Street. This is one of the weaknesses that goes on of disguised property companies that cannot be traced. We have had experience of property companies behaving disgracefully with borough councils looking for people on whom to serve sanitary notices and of fictitious owners working from accommodation addresses in Dublin. We have had all this. We remember Mr. Brady. The same thing is happening with this company.
It is true that there is a firm of accountants at 77, South Audley Street who say that they know the firm of Gamkemp but that they do not propose to disclose their clients' address. The company filed particulars on 18th June, 1958, and returned an allotment of two £1 shares to a man called Robert Corkill, of 23, Vicarage Road, Croydon, also known as Frank Gibbs—here we get the endless business of people trading under different names—and a man called Ronald Watson, both described as directors.
This was the £100 company owning this property of the New Cross Estate. On 27th February, 1959, by resolution, the capital of Gamkemp Investments Ltd. was increased to £25,000 by the creation of 24,900 £1 shares, each ranking pari passu with the first £100. All these addi-

tional shares were issued to one Harold Taylor, of Regency House, Putney Park Lane, Roehampton, the same address as Mr. Corkill, or Mr. Gibbs.
Here comes an association with a building society called the Alliance Perpetual Building Society, in Baker Street, which appears only in the telephone directory but in no reputable book of reference and is not to be mistaken for the Alliance Building Society, which is a perfectly respectable and flourishing company. On 30th March, 1959, there were registered at the Land Registry in the name of Gemkamp all the details of the property mortgaged or charged which I have described as the New Cross Estate.
Having done all this, Mr. Taylor goes to work. First, he appoints agents called Lewis and Tucker, of 9, Hanover Square.

Mr. Mellish: We have them in Bermondsey.

Sir L. Plummer: They have an address, or, at least, a telephone number, in Bermondsey. Their first job was to circularise or cause to be circularised tenants in this property asking them to move. They are protected tenants, all of them; therefore, they do not go. A few days later they get a cheque. Here is the cheque printed as an ordinary cheque on imitation cheque paper, and the heading is:
This is an imitation cheque, but the real thing can be yours by vacating the house in which you are living—Hurry, before it is too late!
It is dated: "Not later than March 31st, 1959." It is drawn on the "Landlords Bank Limited. West End Branch".
Pay Bearer Two Hundred and Fifty Pounds.
With Charming wit it is signed: "Ann Owner." "New Cross Estate Tenants Only.
This is an inducement to the tenant to got out on the promise contained in the circular that he will then get a real cheque which he can cash for £250. What happens? The right hon. Gentleman may not understand this, but £250 is a lot of money to my constituents; £250 is six months' wages; £250 is a lot of money to people who have only their weekly wages packet to live on, with nothing in reserve. This is a great temptation to them, and some of them accept it.
Immediately they go, part of the property is left empty, because they have been living in the top or bottom flat, perhaps their flat is thus decontrolled. In comes who? West Indians, West African immigrants, who by necessity have been forced to pay these sorts of prices I have mentioned, £2,250 and £2,750—including the £250 for this chque—through building societies, or money lenders who charge as much as 25 per cent. or 30 per cent. interest. These immigrants who come to this country are quite unversed in our ways, and know nothing of the law of this country. and they put down a deposit, come to this property, and find they have got to let to their fellow immigrants. Their sole interest becomes exploiting their fellow immigrants. Some of them are not dike that. Some of them are perfectly decent people. They find the co-our prejudice against them all over the place, so they take the sort of action I have described.
What happens? Overcrowding. In one small flat in Deptford on the New Cross Elate, purchased in the conditions I have mentioned, there are living in three rooms 10 adults and two children, in shocking conditions. They are subject to overcrowding notices from the Borough Council. There is rack renting.
There are squabbles between coloured immigrants and neighbouring white people. There are fights; there is racial bitterness. We are in serious danger of having another Notting Hill situation unless something is done about this immediately.
How does this arise? We warned the right hon. Gentleman three years ago that if le decontrolled what was already controlled property by virtue of one tenant giving way to another tenant, this sort of thing would arise. What has he done? He would not listen to what we had to say. He wanted to create the euphoria that everything about housing in London was absolutely splendid. He always refused to listen to what we had to say about housing conditions in London. He has ignored the complaints and pleas London Members have put to him. Now we have a situation like this, where what is approaching fraud as nearly as possible is practised on these tenants and purchasers.
For inducements are being held out to the coloured immigrants. They are told, "If you buy this property for between £2,000 and £2,500 it is true that immediately we can give you only the top part of the house"—which was got by the £250 cheque trick—" but it will not be long before the people downstairs move out. "This is only an inducement. There is no legal basis for it, but when the immigrant family find that the white people downstairs are not going out they make their lives a misery because they feel that those people are to blame. They do not understand that they have been tricked by these crooks. Then we have this boiling up of racialism in an area which had previously been peaceful.
I am not blaming the immigrants. I blame the right hon. Gentleman the Minister. He would not listen when we told him and argued over and over again that this attempt to decontrol what was already controlled property would lead to misery. He would not believe us when we told him that. Now I say that his policy is leading to racialism, and if there is another Notting Hill in Deptford I say that the right hon. Gentleman will be the man responsible.

6.12 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Housing and Local Government should be beginning to be aware by now that there is a serious housing situation in London. Perhaps the best thing that we can do in the debate is to quote from the experiences of our own constituencies. I can say with complete honesty from experience of the eleven years that I have represented St. Pancras, North, that the housing conditions of our constituents are no better today than they were when I was first elected. Like other hon. Members I find that at the weekly surgeries, where we make ourselves available to give advice to our constituents, the same problems come up just as acutely as ever.
The Borough of St. Pancras has not done badly in housing in the post-war period. It has completed 3,784 dwellings. There are 757 under construction, all, I hasten to add, planned by the Labour council which was ousted by the Tories last year. In addition the council has been acquiring property on a considerable scale. It has acquired about


2,500 existing houses but, despite this, there are 6,000 families on the waiting list, and that after a considerable pruning of the list. The actual figure is 6,359. Five years ago, in 1955, it was 5,351. The waiting list situation therefore has got considerably worse in the last five years.
There are still 171 applicants on that list who have been waiting fifteen years, since 1945, and very nearly half the people on the list have been waiting for more than ten years. The borough council has been assessing the position. A report was presented about a month ago making it abundantly clear that no family could expect to be housed on the present building programme, or on any programme that could be foreseen, who had gone on to the council waiting list after 1950. Therefore, all those 4,000 people who have been on the list since 1950 are told that they have absolutely no chance of being housed by the council.
Like all London boroughs the council is in difficulties. Vacant sites have been cleared a long time ago. They have gone. There are now slum clearance areas only and possibly the redevelopment of temporary house sites, but in a slum clearance scheme in the inner London area, one usually finishes up, because of the density regulations, with less accommodation than one started with. In parenthesis, I believe that the time is overdue for a drastic reconstruction of the densities in the inner London area.
Two few dwellings have been built in central London and far too many offices, and for this I blame the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors and the Government generally for the encouragement that they have given to office building in the inner London area and the encouragement which they have given to speculative building of every kind.
The Government have also made the inevitably difficult situation in London far worse than it need have been by a series of deliberate acts of policy. My hon. Friends have recounted them—the derequisitioning, the rise in interest rates, the removal of subsidies, the total failure to plan and, particularly serious in the London area, the way the Government have allowed the value of land to rise and rise.
Several of my hon. Friends have reminded the Minister of what was said from this side of the House when the Rent Act was introduced. I remember interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, I think when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and telling him that in London there could be only one possible outcome to any measure of decontrol at that time, and that was acute hardship for Londoners. He was arguing the merits of decontrol on the assumption that housing supply and demand were roughly in balance. We told him that, however near the truth that might be in other parts of the country, it was an absolute distortion of the position in London where no one then could foresee—and no one can now—the time when housing supply and demand would be in balance. So the Rent Act has led to the hardships in London that we forecast, and, as several of my hon. Friends have said, it is leading to a new series of hardships now that the three-year leases are beginning to come to an end.
We have other troubles in St. Pancras too. The hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Compton Carr) told us of the virtues of differential rent schemes. We have just had one for St. Pancras which has led to very serious trouble indeed. I do not like differential rent schemes anyhow, but this happens to be one of the most vicious that has ever been introduced in any local authority area. Rents have been more than doubled. They have gone up by £2 10s. a week, in some cases for quite a small flat, and this has given rise to a most astonishing series of demonstrations—marches, mass meetings and so on. It has resulted in the town hall having to be guarded. I put a Question to the Home Secretary, and he told me that the town hall had had to be guarded by the police on 28 occasions during the last 12 months and that as many as 173 police were used on one occasion. It has led to the banning of the public from meetings of the council. Inevitably, some tenants feel so passionately about this that they are now facing eviction.
I know that this is not directly the concern of the Minister, but I mention it because one or two kites have been flown recently to the effect that the


Minister is thinking of some action which might require, or at any rate very strongly persuade, councils which have not got them to adopt these schemes.
I hope that these are not inspired rumours, and that the Minister does not intend to go back on one aspect of Tory policy about which we heard so much when the block grant system was being discussed—that the Government do not interfere with the discretion of local authorities to run their own affairs. If there is any idea of trying to force down the throats of reluctant local authorities differential schemes of this kind, then I suggest that the sort of troubles we have been having in St. Pancras will be very much more widespread.
The Government's housing record is a bad one, but it is worst of all in London. I am surprised that a Minister who has had experience of London, who represents a London constituency and who has led a political party across the river at County Hall, should have been so insensitive to the needs of Londoners and incapable of meeting their needs.

6.21 a.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Henry Brooke): I have listened to every word of this debate for the last hour-and-a-half. I was tempted to interrupt sometimes, because exaggerated statements were made. Nevertheless, I am glad that the He use has debated London housing again before rising for the Recess, for there is a serious housing situation in London.
We do not make it better by seeking to lay all the blame for it in any one quarter. It is a problem which can be solved only by widespread co-operation. I, in the time that I have been Minister, anti before then, have never on any occasion sought to minimise the difficulties of the housing situation in London, which are greater than in any other city in Britain, except for Glasgow.
London acts as a magnet. It is a place into which people seek to flock, not only from the West Indies. There is movement in and out of the time, and it is inevitably a place of high costs because the amount of land available is limited. Whatever we do, however

we plan, whatever densities we fix, London is a built-up area and, therefore, an area in which land prices are liable to be high and rents will always tend to be high. There is no getting away from that.
One cannot escape natural facts by talking about price control or rent control. We cannot create supply where there is shortage of land. It is one of the essential facts with which all of us who have anything to do with London housing have to cope.

Mr. David Weitzman: Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North) rose—

Mr. Brooke: I regret that I cannot give way. I have listened for 1½ hours without interrupting.

Mr. Weitzman: Are we to go on for ever like this?

Mr. Brooke: I am only at the beginning of my speech. It has been suggested that I am ignorant about the position in London. I served on the housing committees of local authorities for years after the war, when the situation was considerably worse than it is today. That was the time when many houses had been demolished by the enemy, while many others had been damaged and were not fit for use, and when the population of London was considerably higher.
The population of the County of London has been falling by more than 20,000 a year for a number of years, and the number of houses and flats which have been built is far higher than the number pulled down. The inevitable consequence is that the situation now is considerably better than it was. Nevertheless, there is still much to be done.
Frankly, I have been waiting in this debate for helpful suggestions, but in vain. The kind of suggestion that we have received is that the Government should make housing loans available at cut interest rates. But we all know the effect of the policy of artificially low interest rates in the late 1940s. That was one of the main causes of inflation in this country.

Mr. H. Butler: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The Minister is complaining that no proposals have been put before him. I should like to ask


whether it is within your memory that an hon. Member on this side of the House was reminded that he must not talk about legislation. Is the Minister aware of that?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): I am not sure what fact I am being asked if I was aware of, but we cannot talk about legislation on this Bill.

Mr. Butler: I am asking for the Minister to be reminded that the fact that we do not make, and have not made, proposals is because we are prohibited from doing so by the rules of the House.

Mr. Brooke: There were two proposals made by the Opposition. One would not have required legislation, and that is that subsidised interest rates should have been made available. The policy of artificially low rates was one of the main causes of inflation under the Socialist Government. It sent prices soaring and made the task of the housing authorities more difficult.

Mr. A. Lewis: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? You have for a few moments been out of the Chamber, so you will not be aware that eight of my hon. Friends have been rising to take part in the debate. The Minister was called, of course, quite rightly, by Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to reply. The whisper has gone around that the Patronage Secretary intends to move the closure. May I ask you whether or not hon. Members who have sat here all night to take part in this important debate, knowing they will not be able to raise this matter for another three months, will have the opportunity of speaking about the position in their own constituences, if only for a few moments?

Mr. Speaker: No, the hon. Member may not ask me. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Brooke: I was saying that of the two suggestions that have been made, one would have either an inflationary effect or worse, and the other, although I do not see how it could be carried out without legislation, was that somehow rent control should be reimposed. I will not speak about legislation, but I will say that the long period of rent restriction and rent control is one of the major causes of the housing difficulties of London today, because large

numbers of people have been anchored to their houses and flats through the fact that they were able to continue living there at very low rents. Large numbers of houses and flats have deteriorated over the years, because not enough has been spent on them owing to the low incomes they were bringing in. Rent control has wrought for the worse the whole housing situation.
I cannot believe that it would be helpful to the present problem to bring back under rent control the houses and flats which are now out of it. Certainly I have nothing of that kind in mind. To reimpose rent control encourages owners to sell rather than to re-let. One of the complaints made in this debate is that there is too little property to let. I can certainly tell the House that had there been no Rent Act, or were rent control now to be reimposed on flats out of control, there would be still fewer to let. If we are ever to regain a balance between supply and demand in rented property, we have to get rid of rent control rather than bring it back.

Mr. Weitzman: On a point of order. I understood that it was your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that legislation could not be referred to in this debate. The Minister has just been referring to a reimposition of rent control, which must necessitate legislation. Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister said that he was not going to refer to legislation, but he did answer a suggestion which was put by an hon. Member. Strictly, I should have stopped the hon. Member making that suggestion, but I confess that attention has flagged from time to time during the night.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Do we understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said that he intends to proceed with a further measure of decontrol?

Mr. Brooke: The right hon. Gentleman should understand nothing of the kind. The Government's policy was set out in their election manifesto.
I recognise that there is genuine hardship in some cases—I do not deny that for a moment—but there is no solution by way of reimposing rent control, whether that is done by legislation or otherwise.

Mr. A. Lewis: What is the right hon. Gentleman's solution?

Mr. Brooke: I am giving the lines on which I think we should go forward. We have to re-examine the whole of the London area to see whether we can find any additional land for housing purposes. We have to review all our planning arrangements. I was going to say that we must review our densities and I may go that far, but, as hon. Members know, the London County Council review of the County of London Development Plan is now before me with certain proposals about densities, and I must no: make up my mind on these matters unit the public inquiry has been held. I will certainly give very careful attention to whatever is said at that inquiry about the density question.
The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that one of the causes of the trouble was that the Government had been far too lax in allowing office building. I do not want to make party points this morning, but I remind the hon. Member that it was my predecessor who intervened when he had before him a draft of the County of London plan in 1955. He amended that plan so as to leave less space for commercial and office building and more space for housing, which was quite right. Since then, a far tougher policy has been maintained by him, by me, and by the pluming authority, and the figures show that far fewer office permissions have been given in recent years than were given in the years before 1955.

Mr. Jay: Is there any attempt to coordinate the density regulations, which decide how many people may live in an area, with the permissions for office and factory space, which decide how many jobs there are? If there is not, how can the housing problem possibly be solved?

Mr. Brooke: Certain areas are zoned for office and commercial use and others are zoned for residential purposes, as the right hon. Gentleman knows.
What more can be done? One thing which can be done and which would be helpful would be for all London local authorities to review their council rent systems. I shall not lend myself to any exaggerated statements, but the fact is that in London as a whole there are many people living in council houses

and flats who could afford to go out and buy their own houses, if they were not tempted to remain where they are by the low rent which the council concerned is charging. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Marsh) said that Greenwich charged £3 and upwards a week for its flats, but he was speaking of new flats and it is the older flats which must be considered in this connection.
Every council tenant who could go out and buy his own house but who remains in a council flat keeps on the waiting list somebody who could be taken off that waiting list and be put into a council flat. Therefore, if local authorities do not review their rent systems; if they do not adopt a differential rent plan, or some other plan of that kind, they must not take it amiss if they are criticised for worsening the housing position in their areas and making the waiting list longer than it need be.

Mr. Marsh: One of the big problems is that when this is discussed people usually talk in terms of the total income going into the house. The difficulty in purchasing a house is that a building society will not accept the aggregate income, but will accept only the income of the one person guaranteeing the repayment of the mortgage. Is there some way out of that?

Mr. Brooke: There is a good deal of competition between building societies. I think that the hon. Gentleman, or one of 'his hon. Friends, said that one could not get started towards buying a house unless one put down £400 or £500. One of the changes we made in the House Purchase and Housing Act was to enact that in future a local authority could lend up to 100 per cent. of the value of the house. It should not be impossible for people to obtain 100 per cent. mortgage advances. Indeed, I know that they are doing so. The suggestion that anybody in London has to find £500 cash before he can start thinking about purchasing a house is very wide of the mark. Fortunately the House Purchase and Housing Act provisions have been taken up, and some local authorities—not all—are making 100 per cent. advances. Certainly on a considerable scale people have been taking advantage of that to purchase older houses—people who before that Act was


passed would have been most unlikely to get an advance from a building society.

Mr. Jay: The Minister must know that that is 100 per cent. of the valuer's figure, and not 100 per cent. of the market value of the house.

Mr. Brooke: I know that it is, but I was criticising the suggestion that £500 cash was needed before anybody in London could think in terms of buying a house. I am defending the Government against the most unfair charges that have been made against them; against insinuations that we have been callous towards London's housing situation, and against allegations that our housing policy has been a failure.
I do not find the electors taking that view. Conservative gains in the London constituencies at the last General Election were significant. If one were to believe the Opposition, one would think that the whole of London was wishing to live under Socialist rule, yet at municipal by-election after by-election in London the Conservatives have gained ground.
I therefore submit to the Opposition that, instead of seeking to make party capital—not very successfully—out of the London housing situation, it would be far better for us all to examine the possible practical remedies. I have suggested some of them. I have frankly agreed that oases of hardship are occurring now. I think that there are some swindlers in the market, and if information is given to me I am ready to have an examination made of those people who may be sailing too close to the wind. I should like to deal with them.
There are bad landlords, and there are bad tenants. That is something from which no Minister of Housing and Local Government, nor anybody who has been chairman of a local housing committee, can escape. There are landlords who certainly ought not to be entrusted with property. There are tenants who take no care whatever of the property in which they live.

Mr. Strauss: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would be happy to examine cases submitted to him. We are grateful to him for that. What we would like to know is what he will do about

it if he finds that these bad landlords are extracting the last penny from their tenants in an unconscionable way, though perfectly legally under the Act?

Mr. Brooke: I was asked whether I would examine cases and I said that I would. I would recommend in every case where it is alleged that a landlord has taken over property and is seeking to demand extortionate rents that those tenants should get together to make sure that they have some well-qualified professional man negotiating on their behalf with the landlord, because the one thing that the landlord cannot afford is to have the whole property left on his hands empty, which he will have. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Indeed, I know quite a lot of property which is empty in London at the moment because the landlords are asking rents for it which are above the market value.
My final word is this, as it was in the land debate the other day. It is no good imagining that one can monkey about with market forces and keep down artificially the price of land or the rents of houses. Sooner or later all of them have got to find their market level. They must find it. I do not deny for a moment that the market level of land and rents in London is liable to be high. That being so, what we must do is to follow up the other lines which I have mentioned, and I should like to see everybody co-operating to that end.

6.42 a.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Mention was made a little earlier by one of my hon. Friends of the possibility, which we hope will not become an actuality, that the Patronage Secretary might at some stage in the debate feel inclined to move the Closure. I would draw his attention, if I may, in the most friendly manner, and I would also respectfully submit it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are still a number of my hon. Friends who have been here all night and who have the most intimate and most poignant acquaintance with the housing problem in London, but who have not yet had an opportunity of putting their constituents' problems before the House.
I think it can also be said that none of my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate so far could be charged in any way with having wasted the


time of the House. The speeches have all been brief, concise and to the point. I trust that that fact will not be lost on the Patronage Secretary. If it should be lost on him, we shall then put our trust in the exercise of your discretion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. A. Lewis: Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, would he also take the opportunity of emphasising the fact that for the next three months we shill not have the opportunity of raising this question in the House at all, and it is during that period that we shall have great difficulty in our constituencies? That is one reason why we feel that we ought to be able to raise the matter now, after my hon. Friend has spoken.

Mr. Stewart: What my hon. Friend says is very true. Everything that one says about not curtailing a debate has added force when it comes so soon before a long period of recess.
I should like to begin, as so many of my hon. Friends have, by referring to one or two instances of the operation of the Rent Act. The particular feature of the instances which I propose to quote is the fact that these are not instances where the tenant has been required to pay an exorbitant rent; they are instances where he has not been given the opportunity, on any consideration whatsoever, of staying in what has been his home for decades.
Take, for example the case of a man of 70 who, despite his age, has a record of honourable service in the Armed Forces in both world wars. He had been living in his home, until recently, for thirty years or more. He was not asked to pay a higher rent or offered a three-year agreement. He was told, "Get out. Once you are out I shall be able to sell this house much more profitably with vacant possession than I could if you were a tenant." Or take the case of in elderly couple occupying only half a house in a property which, by virtue of its size alone, would not have been decontrolled. They are the main tenants of the house and the rest of it is sub-let. They are, therefore, subject to the provisions of decontrol. They have been living in the property for twenty-five years. Now they are living in one furnished room with the rents which furnished accommodation attracts in London, that is all they can afford.
In the case of a woman, a widow, whose husband was killed at Dunkirk, again there was no opportunity afforded to offer a higher rent. No agreement was offered to the woman. She was told to get out so that the property could be turned into furnished rooms—no addition there to the supply of unfurnished accommodation to let, for which there is a crying need in London.
In each of these cases the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1958, can delay the operation of the law, but it cannot hold it up for ever, as these tenants and many others like them in London have found. That Act runs out next year and here, without going beyond the rules of order, we might invite the Minister to consider whether it is desirable that the provisions of that Act should expire in 1961.
Where are these people? The examples which I have quoted are isolated examples of the quiet wretchedness caused in so many homes throughout London by the Rent Act. Where are they to go? An hon. Member opposite suggested that if they could pay a rent of £3 10s. a week, private enterprise would find accommodation for them, but it will not, and how many people could afford that kind of rent?
We were told that it is a quarter of the average industrial wage. It does not require much consideration to realise that a large number of these people do not receive the average wage. Many people who want to rent sufficient accommodation to live in decently receive a wage which is below the average. They comprise a considerable part of the demand and it is no use at all telling them to pay rents of £3 10s. a week. Even were they able to do so, they would be lucky if more than a small proportion of them found a private landlord willing to rent them accommodation at that rent which would be sufficient for their needs.
The plain truth is, and the Minister must know it, that private enterprise, unaided, is totally unable to cope with the housing needs of the people in London and that if we are to get anywhere, there must be more council building. The Minister pleaded for what he called "widespread co-operation." Presumably, the right hon. Gentleman meant between himself, the local authorities, landlords, tenants and hon. Members on this side of the House.
What was his own contribution to that widespread co-operation? It was that we should look for additional land and possibly review densities. I grant him that there is something to be said for that, but he must know very well that that cannot add in great measure to the supply of housing accommodation in London. It can make some difference, but the Metropolis, as he said, is a magnet. Although the population in the country is decreasing, we have a steady flow of people into London year after year and the drift of people out, some to the new towns, some to L.C.C. out-county estates, and so on, is partially offset by continual movement in of new people. The measure he proposed, although it is of some value, is not adequate to cape with the problem as a whole.
The other measure was his dear old remedy—if only all local authorities would adopt rent rebate schemes that would solve the housing problem. Let us look at that. I think he will find that, if he does what my hon. Friends did some months ago—if he inquires in detail of all the main Metropolitan boroughs—the main obstacle most of them will say is in their way in solving the housing problem is not finance, serious as that is, but lack of place's to build. I do not say that they underestimate the seriousness of their financial difficulties, but I do not think he will find that there are many authorities in London of whom it could be truthfully said, "If only this authority would get itself in a bit more revenue, by raising council rents, it could afford to build more." The problem is, where is it to build?
As for the suggestion that if they raised council rents they would cause a number of tenants, instead of staying in council flats, to move out and buy their own houses and as a result there would be that many more vacancies, has the Minister considered what sort of solution that is quantitively to the problem? The Parliamentary Secretary made a shot at it in a debate we had some months ago. He suggested, with no sort of evidence—because there 'has never been an inquiry on this—that perhaps it might make a 1 per cent, contribution. The Minister's share in the widespread co-operation for which he called is two

measures, one of almost insignificant magnitude and the other only a very moderate contribution. If he really means what he says about widespread co-operation, he ought to be prepared to try to accept some part of the many suggestions which have been made to him, not only in this debate, but in earlier housing debates.
What are some of them? I shall try to tread carefully so as to keep on the right side of the rules of order. There are, first, the measures connected with the Rent Act. If the Minister has persuaded himself that we are making an unnecessary fuss about the Rent Act, let him study a little paragraph which appeared in last night's Star:
Who feels the soaring rent pinch now in central London? Doctors.
Some think of moving out altogether. Others ask for a special London rent allowance to help them meet staggering increases.
If doctors are disturbed, how much more disturbed poorer paid tenants must be.
This is not just a Socialist crotchet that rents are a real trial to people in London. It is being felt now by all classes. Is not the Minister prepared at least to say, a little more categorically than he has said, that even if people are not swindling, even if they are keeping within the law, it is none the less wrong, anti-social and contrary to the general tenor of Government policy for them simply to regard a house as an instrument to increase their own income?
Will the Minister say that a landlord ought to remember that the house which to him is a source of income is a home to somebody else? Has he no word of condemnation for the many instances which have been quoted in the debate? Most, but not all, of them were not swindles but were things which the Minister has legalised by passing the Rent Act. Is he prepared to admit at least that he let loose a rather larger wild beast when he passed that Act than he bargained for? Is he prepared to say that he will at least consider the continued currency of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958? Is he prepared to indicate that if landlords will not listen to remonstrances he may have to take other measures?
If he is not prepared to consider a more favourable interest rate for local authorities, will he help them at the other


end by the restoration, at least in part, of the subsidy for general need? I demonstrated earlier that there is a desperate shortage of housing in London, that private enterprise has not met it and that we shall not solve the problem unless there is more council building. What is happening to council building? May I remind the Minister that in England and Wales in the first quarter of 1959 the number of council houses started was 28,000, 'whereas in the first quarter of this year it was 20,600, which was a drop of 25 per cent. That is not an accident. It is a serious shrinkage.
The Minister must know that we cannot solve this problem without council building. Some of his hon. Friends like to believe that we can, but he must know that that belief certainly has no application in London. But what is his policy about it? He should remember the letter which 'was sent to Kirkby-in-Ashfield Urban District Council and which was quoted in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on 31st May. That letter, from the right hon. Gentleman's Department to a local authority, said,
Consideration has recently been given to the housing programme for 1960 and it has now been decided that this should be roughly the same as in 1959."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st May, 1960; Vol. 624, c. 1147]
Is that declaration still the Minister's policy—that there is to be no increase in 19150 compared with 1959? In fact, up to date there has been a 25 per cent. decrease. Is not the Minister prepared to say that he does not regard that as desirable and that he realises that the contribution made by council housing to the solution of the problem ought at least not to be reduced and ought in fact to be increased? If he means what he says about widespread co-operation to solve the problem, he ought at least to be pre-pared to go that far.
I do not wish to take further time, because others of my hon. Friends want to speak. I ask the Minister, however, to realise what he is doing. He is acquiescing, apparently, very calmly in

the many well-authenticated stories of misery and unhappiness caused by the Rent Act. He does not seem to be seized of the gravity of the London housing problem, at least if we are to judge by his steady refusal to make any substantial contribution towards solving that problem.

The Minister is doing another thing. The result of his Rent Act and his general attitude to housing policy has been to introduce into human relations, particularly in London and the great cities, a growing element of bestiality and nastiness, an increasing belief by people who own property that if they own lilt they can use it solely as an instrument to get an income and that ownership confers no obligations whatever. To adapt the words that Shylock used, "You will answer. The slaves are ours, the house is mine. I will use it to fill my own pocket, without any regard more than the law can absolutely compel out of me for any obligation I might have to the man or woman or family who is living in it."

If the Minister says that he will investigate cases of swindle and spivery, let him remember also that it is the atmosphere that his Act has created that has encouraged people to pursue the kind of activities so vigorously described by my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). The real cleavage of opinion on the whole housing problem between the two sides of the House is that to us on this side, fundamentally a house is something for use; its purpose is to provide a home for a family. To the other side, a house is primarily a piece of property the purpose of which is to get income for its owner.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 124, Noes 19.

Division No. 149.]
AYES
[7.3 a.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Berkeley, Humphry
Braine, Bernard


Aitken, W. T.
Bidgood, John C.
Brewis, John


Allason, James
Biggs-Davison, John
Brooke, Rt. Hon, Henry


Arbuthnot. John
Bingham, R. M.
Brooman-White, R.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bossom, Clive
Bullard, Denys


Balniel, Lord
Bourne-Arton, A.
Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)




Channon, H. P. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Chataway, Christopher
Hughes-Young, Michael
Peel, John


Chichester-Clark, Ft,
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Percival, Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitman, I. J.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pott, Percivall


Cooke, Robert
Jackson, John
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
James, David
Ramsden, James


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Corfield, F. V.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Coulson, J. M,
Kirk, Peter
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Langford-Holt, J.
Roots, William


Currie, G. B. H.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Dance, James
Lilley, F. J. P.
Sharples, Richard


Duncan, Sir James
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shaw, M.


Elliott, R. W.
Longbottom, Charles
Skeet, T. H. H.


Emery, Peter
Loveys, Walter H.
Smith, Dudley (Br'mf'rd &amp; Chiswick)


Fair, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Smithers, Peter


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
McLaren, Martin
Storey, Sir Samuel


Gardner, Edward
McMaster, Stanley R.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Gibson-Watt, David
Maddan, Martin
Tapsell, Peter


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maginnis, John E.
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Marten, Neil
Turner, Colin


Goodhart, Philip
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Goodhew, Victor
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray
Wall, Patrick


Green, Alan
Mills, Stratton
Watts, James


Gresham Cooke, R.
Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Morgan, William
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Neave, Airey
wise, A. R.


Hendry, Forbes
Noble, Michael
Woodhouse, C. M.


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Woodnutt, Mark


Hocking, Philip N.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Worsley, Marcus


Holland, Philip
Page, John (Harrow, West)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Hopkins, Alan
Page, Graham



Hornby, R. P-
Panned, Norman (Kirkdale)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Bryant and Mr. Whitelaw.




NOES


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Skeffington, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Mellish, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cliffe, Michael
Oram, A. E.
Stonehouse, John


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Pavitt, Laurence
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Evans, Albert
Plummer, Sir Leslie



Hart, Mrs. Judith
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Ross, William
Mr. Marsh and Mr. Reynolds.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Question put accordingly and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

7.11 a.m.

Mr. Herbert Butler: Now, at this hour when hon. Members opposite are departing and some of the dormitories are being left to the beds instead of their occupants, I want to draw attention to a matter which concerns many hundreds of thousands of people, particularly in London, who are affected by the iniquities perpetrated by the present Minister of Housing and Local Government. I remind the Minister of the title of his office and that we are now reaching the point when some of the effects of the Government's Rent Act will be felt.
After listening to the right hon. Gentleman earlier today and to the guidance

that he has to offer to thousands of people who will be affected shortly by the Rent Act, I would remind the House that, if he is reported correctly, the right hon. Gentleman said at a Press conference in Cardiff that the last vestiges of protection to 'the tenant are disappearing and that he added:
I do not think that this will create any serious problem outside London and Greater London 
He continued:
I have advised people to employ a solicitor or agent to negotiate for them with the landlord who cannot necessarily get the rent he asked for.
That is a bad statement for the Minister to make. We are trying to get from him some indication of what steps the tenant could take if he found himself facing the effects of the Rent Act. He has told us that the tenants could organise themselves and go to the owners and say, "We want a reduction in the rent that you propose to charge us."
The right hon. Gentleman suggested that there was a free market whereby


bands of tenants could get together and held a pistol at the heads of property owners. We know that that is impossible. There is no free market. The property owner is in possession of a scarce commodity which is a necessity to the lives of the people.
In the half hour that we have for this debate I particularly want to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that whatever the effect of the Rent Act throughout the country, it is now accepted that private enterprise cannot fill the bill in the provision of rented property. Local authorities are facing the opprobium of citizens who can look only to them for the provision of housing accommodation. Other acts by the Government since 1951 have made it mare and more difficult for the local authorities to carry out this public responsibility.
In spite of the difficulties which have existed prior to and since the Rent Act, there are additional matters to which the Minister should turn his attention. I have been making inquiries in my constituency. Leaving aside the awful problems of more than 6,000 families still on the waiting list, I understand that in the Metropolitan Borough of Hackney there are 8,000 houses with basements, about 1,600 basement rooms and, on the basis of 2·5 persons to a unit, about 20,000 people living in basements. Twenty per cent. of the basements are unfit for human habitation. Tie medical officer of health should condemn them and close them. If he decides that an order has to be served and they have to be closed, there is absolutely no place to which the people who are turned out can go.
There is another factor about London housing which has not been mentioned. In spite of all the new London County Council and other local authority development, 54 per cent. of the population in my area have no baths. In one survey of 72 houses we found that only six had baths. Forty per cent. of the people in my constituency have to share a lavatory. My hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) dealt earlier with the question of coloured immigrants. So far as we can ascertain, in my constituency we have about 5,000 of them, and in many of the properties which are bought by them

there are three families in one house using the same lavatory. The use of a common lavatory from day to day is one of the most awful things that one could experience. The very thing to which my hon. Friend referred happens, and attempts are made to get out the old lady and gentleman who have probably lived in the house for 20 or 25 years.
I cannot suggest legislation, but I put it to the Minister that we are, after all, in a situation where it is accepted by everyone who knows about it that the housing problem in London is a very grave one. If the Minister cannot do anything about it, what is the use of his telling us that he is going to look at sites and new planning ideas? We in the localities are trying to find sites. If the Minister really feels that the people of London can be given no hope, why does he not say so and get out of the Ministry?

7.19 a.m.

Mr. Walter Edwards: I am sure that the Minister will not mind my also referring to the effects of the Rent Act. I want to take him up on a point he mentioned during the latter part of his speech on the Consolidated Fund Bill when he said that he would like hon. Members to give him some information of what is taking place in their constituencies and that he would be quite ready to look into those cases.

Mr. H. Brooke: One or two hon. Members opposite had asked me whether I would examine information which they sent me. I said that I would, willingly.

Mr. Edwards: I was about to say that I am proposing in the short time at our disposal to give the right hon. Gentleman one or two facts of which I am sure he is not aware and of which I am certain he will take notice. I do not believe that the Minister wants to see working-class, or middle-class or any other tenants being mulcted by some of these property owners, but I wish to deal with the decontrol aspect of the Rent Act.
In my constituency of Stepney there are quite a lot of old, privately-owned blocks of flats. Many of them are about a hundred years old; certainly most of them date back to the last century.


Obviously, they have been occupied by working-class tenants since they were built. They still were until such time as the Rent Act was passed.
There is one block of flats, about a hundred years old, where there is now a dispute, and when the Minister suggests that the remedy for tenants when landlords put up the rents is to see a specialist, I say to him that one can see all the specialists in the country but these landlords will not take any notice whatsoever.
There are 160 flats in this block. They have no amenities—no bathroom, no scullery. The kitchen, with a sink in it, is the scullery. Fifty of these flats, since the passing of the Rent Act, have become decontrolled for one reason or another, such as death or transfers to larger or smaller accommodation. The block was owned by what one could describe as a decent sort of property owner until after the Rent Act was passed. Even When that Act was passed, the flats, which were under £40 rateable value were controlled, but the tenants still had to pay an increased rent to bring it up to the new controlled one. In most cases, the old landlord, knowing his East End tenants, never charged much more than the old controlled rent when a flat fell vacant. He felt that he was getting fair due compared with what had been the case previously, and he would not go too high.
A situation has now been existing in Stepney for about twelve months in which somebody—I do not know who it is, but it makes no difference—is offering the owners of blocks of flats good sums of money for them, and as soon as they are taken over the decontrolled tenants get notices 'terminating their tenancies and a fresh offer at about £1 a week more than before.
An illustration of this is in the example of a one-roomed flat. The old controlled rent, without rates, was 6s. 6d. a week, and the old landlord was satisfied under the new Act with 8s. 6d. The new landlords who have recently bought the property are not satisfied with that—they are demanding 17s. 6d. a week.
That is over twice the rent the tenants were paying to the previous owners. The sky is the limit, because if someone else buys the property at an even higher price, then they will put up the rents

again. This is creating extreme hardship for many families. They do not know what to do when their rents go up as much as that, and the money has to come from something else—from the children, from food, or from clothes. The difficulty is to prevent those people getting into trouble by taking the law into their own hands.
I would like the Minister to go very carefully into this question of new ownership, particularly in London. I can give him plenty of facts if he wants them, and when he sees the facts he must come to the conclusion that these landlords ought to be restricted in some way. One way might be to keep the rent at the same level for a certain period after a change in ownership. I can assure the Minister that what has happened in the last twelve months is something that will 'happen continually in places like Stepney until these sharks have got hold of all this pre-war property, particularly blocks of flats. I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words on this subject, and I hope I have not taken up too much time.

7.26 a.m.

Mr. A. E. Oram: During the course of the night the Minister has come under a great deal of fire which, in my judgment, was entirely justified. But I am sure that those hon. Members who still remain appreciate the fact that he has stayed for this debate and does not, I understand, intend to speak again.
For the closing minutes of this sitting it is perhaps a bit too much to ask hon. Members to recall something that occurred at Question Time, now some seventeen hours ago, which seemed to typify the difference of attitude on housing matters between the two sides of the House. My hon. Friend, the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) and the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) asked Questions about the effect of interest rates on local authority housing programmes, and another of my hon. Friends went so far as to say that the Minister's policies would force councils to stop council house building altogether. In reply, the Chancellor of the Exchequer sought to justify the high interest rates by saying that, after all, there is such a great number of competing demands on available


capital, and, therefore, he implied that interest rates have to be high.
If one thing more than another has been made clear from the debate which has just concluded it is that the housing situation in London is so tragically serious that the country cannot afford not to make money available to solve it. Housing should be at the top of the nation's needs and we say that it should be the national interest and not the rate of interest which should determine the housing programme.
Hon. Members have been giving examples of cases from their own constituencies and as I have listened I have been able to picture parallel cases in my own constituency. All the major difficulties which have been explained—finding sites in already overcrowded areas, finance and the problems arising out of the Rent Act—are to be found in East Ham. However, I want to speak of one additional difficulty. It is not a major problem at this stage, but there is every sign, judging by the experience of the housing officer and borough surveyor of East Ham, that it may become a serious problem. It is the problem of the shortage of bricks.
I know that there have been Questions on the subject, but I urge the Minister to give increased attention to the matter, because housing should be the top priority if there is any danger of a shortage of bricks. Only yesterday morning, I received a letter from my borough council to say that schemes for rehousing old people and slum clearance schemes are in danger of being held up because of a threatening shortage of bricks. In North Woolwich, which, despite its name, is part of East Ham, I saw a slum clearance scheme for which the footings for a big block of flats had already been prepared and I was told that there were considerable doubts about proceeding because of the pros-

pect of the bricks not being forthcoming. I mention that merely as a factor which is particularly applicable in my area. But that does not mean that I could not parallel instances which have been given by hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) caught the attention of the House when he gave those examples of people who had come to his "bureau" but whose troubles he had not been able to solve. Every hon. Member present has a "bureau" and comes across tragic cases. Yesterday and the day before I had letters about such cases. It is very difficult to respond to all the cases, because we all know the problems but the individual cannot appreciate that his own case is only one out of 3,000 or 4,000. We get examples of cripples needing ground floor accommodation; of young married couples who have to start their married life living apart; young teen-age growing children of both sexes having to share the same bedroom, and accidents to young children because of the tragic overcrowding.
Similar examples could be quoted by all hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. A community, which in other aspects of its life can be termed affluent, ought not to allow these tragic housing conditions to remain a day longer than necessary.
I started with a compliment to the right hon. Gentleman and I am sorry that I have to end on a distinctly different note. I have not hitherto taken part in housing debates, but I have listened to them. The right hon. Gentleman's attitude to this problem seems to be one of cold statistical indifference, and the time has come when that attitude ought to be changed.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to Eight o'clock a.m.